Text

Performance Indicators Feb 1995
	ML20081J138
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	02/28/1995
From:	; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20081J132	List: LIC-95-0074, Forwards Fort Calhoun Performance Indicators Feb 1995; ML20081J138;
References
	NUDOCS 9503270118
	Download: ML20081J138 (100)
	v • d • e

.....

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICKf0RS ps FEBRUARY 1995 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS

g.m Pumal a,e wa%a w aav alkb,...

d uk unden, aal wundjud nad...

y d w a, 2 Wisa, caww sng, cunanilanal...

9 4

dwa,usag,e,e!!>...dwdang,ikp?>

f 94 66,6L 6, way,6.

Jt w w-dimini, mi tk wdl se alevnd, piauum,awasan,feawJkuk un, an aal ik pa, wnd $!ndian, u -/_% LL 9u w e,e pewn,, eljud u doung ik 9V ikap.

W ). 6%na 6

6

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT Prepared By:

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Testand Performance Group FEBRUARY 1995 I

FORT CALHOUN STATION FEBRUARY 1995 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT i

l OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

During the month of February 1995. Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power until February 11. 1995, at which time a 1%/ day coastdown was initiated in preparation for the 1995 Refueling Outage. On February 18. a plant shutdown was initiated when the seal bleedoff temperature of Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) #35 increased beyond 240 degrees F. The shutdown marked the start of the plant's 15th refueling outage.19 days prior to the scheduled start date.

On February 2.1995, the seal bleed-off temperature of CEDM #35 had increased to greater than 200 F.

It was determined at that time that continued operation could be allowed with seal bleed off temperatures up to 250 degrees F.

The monitoring frequency of the CEDM temperature was increased and the status was reported to management daily.

Late February 17, 1995, the CEDM #35 seal bleed-off temperature spiked above 240 degrees F.

Containment activity and Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leak rate also increased.

Plant management determined that a plant shutdown was appropriate.

Operations initiated the power reduction at 1-2% per hour. The CEDM bleed off-temperature. RCS leak rate, and containment activity were closely monitored during the power reduction. The decision was made t begin the refueling outage early as a result of the forced shutdown.

On February 20. at 1220 hours0.0141 days 0.339 hours 0.00202 weeks 4.6421e-4 months , the main generator breakers were opened, marking the start of the 1995 refueling outage. RCS cooldown and depressurization continued and the plant was placed on shutdown cooling on February 22, 1995.

On February 9. during testing of the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) Reactor Coolant High Pressure Sample (RCHPS) sequence in the accident mode, an RCS leak I

was identified on outboard containment isolation valve HCV-500A.

The leak occurred between the valve body and its diaphragm.

Due to the potential loss of containment integrity, the redundant containment isolation valve. HCV-500B.

was imediately deactivated and locked closed. Successful local leak rate tests were performed on each valve individually prior to declaring them operable. The leak on HCV-500A was caused by leakage past reactor coolant sample isolation valve HCV-2500.

Since a flow path had not yet been established back to the Reactor Coolant Drain Tank (RCDT) by the PASS's programmable controller, overpressurization of the valve diaphragms occurred.

The PASS's programmable controller is tagged-out pending reprograming to compensate for the leakage through these valves.

The RCS HCV-2500 series sample valves are scheduled for refurbishment during the 1995 Refueling Outage.

I i

E r

FORT CALHOUN STATION FEBRUARY 1995 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT i

OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

(continued) 1 Activities continued to support the refueling outage.

Critical path evolutions that were completed to date to support removal of the Reactor Vessel (RV) head i

included: missile shield removal, uncoupling of CEAs. drain down to mid-loop to i

dump steam generator tubes, RV head detensioning and head stud removal.

i The following NRC inspection was completed during this reporting period:

IER No. 95-02 Resident Monthly Inspection IER No. 95-03 Security Inspection There were no Licensee Event Reports submitted during this reporting period.

11

= _

Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories

.n 9%g

!_ h pg;h@6*Mfi Q

Performance in industry Unplanned

? Thermal'.

Upper 10% and better dj Unplanned Unit Automatic Performance than 1995 OPPD goal Capability S

Capability Scrams /7,000 Factor Loss Factor i q

Hours Critic

$@iE$gg R

Performance Better Than EmE Rim 1995 OPPD Goal l

I

(

miu HpgI Sa9,ty AFW Safety IEDG Nfety 4 Fuel (

lek fRollabilityj Performance Not Meeting i

Sy System Sys 1995 OPPD Goal i

Performance FeHemisiipa jind.lcatod p,,o ance lD i=

lp,,:,,

ME 1

11 Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

h' pSih.

Collective Volume of

[IndMsNiele g

94 94 15 dde' Radiation Low-Level iSafetyp Exposure Radioactive

!hccident1 February 1995 Waste

[Ratel L.

Year-To-Date Best Possible I

g Value 1995 Year-End Performance Performance INPO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS e

i a

Scra s ji Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories

' ' ' ' ' l

.c l I

'[l ll Q Performance Better Than Industry Average Trend hih inhbp dth ens Performance Better Than 1995 OPPD Goal I

r l

Performance Not Meeting 1995 OPPD Goal or Industry Average Trend 1

Sgt Outage uros N

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

i 34

'94 95 February 1995 F rced Collective fue

"'tlf "l%","

g3m "er' '="" - '= ';

c NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS t

-,--.,-...c.

,,,,,.,,..,-_.._...._r

.__._,_.r.

.-.4,_

y

...-__..___..___,.._._____._.m

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 - CUMMARY POSITIVE TREND REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of improving performance or three In-line Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service consecutive months of performance that is superior to (Page 51) the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Operations Division Qualty Procedure 37 (NOD OP-37).

Hazardous Waste Prod'xed (Page 52)

The following performance indicators exhibited positive trends for the reporting month:

Contaminated Radiation Controfled Area (Page 53)

Industrial Safety Accident Rate -INPO (Page 2)

End of Positive Trend Report.

Hioh Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System ADVERSE TREND REPORT Performance (Page 8)

A Performance indicator with data representing 5 can-secutive months of declining performance; or four or Auxiliarv Feedwater System Safety System Performance more consecutive months of performance that is trending (Page 9) towards declining as determined by the Manager - Sta-tion Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per NOD-Emeroency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability OP-37. A supervisor whose performance indcator ex-(Page 11) hibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend Diesef Generator Reliabi9v (25 Demands) is not adverse.

(Page 12)

The following performance indicator exhibited an ad-Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resuttino in Lie-verse trend for the reporting month:

ensee Event Reoorts (Page 20)

Fuel Refiability indicator (Page 14)

Forced Outaae Rate An adverse trend is indicated based on the FRI value for (Page 23) the reporting month exceeding the 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal of less than 5.0 X 10d, and the potential for Unolanned Auto Scrams oer 7.000 Hours Cticial 1 or 2 defective fuel rods in the core.

(Page 28)

Gross Heat Rate (Page 31)

Eouloment Forced Outaoes Per 1.000 Critical Hours End of Adverse Trend Report.

(Page 34)

Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hoers Out of Umit (Page 38)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 39)

Cents Per Kilowatt Hour (Page 41 )

j Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance l' ems Overdue (Page 46) v

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 -

SUMMARY

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT IMPROVEMENTS /CHAN GES A performance indicator with data for the reporting period This section lists significant changes made to the report that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is and to specific indicators within the report since the defined as "Needing increased Management Attention" previous month, per NODCP-37.

Violaton Trend The following performance indicators are ched as need-(Page 18) ing increased management attention for the reporting This indicator has been revised to indicate a 12-month month:

trend for Cited and Non-Cited violations, as well as Ched Violations for the top quartile plant in Region IV.

Control Room Fouinment Deficiencies (Page 15)

The total number of mntrol room equipment deficiencies at the end of the reporting month has exceeded the Fort Calhoun monthly goal of s45 since March 1994.

Thermal Perfonnance (Page 32)

Initial results from testing have confirmed losses in plant electrical output are occurring due to conservatively over caLalating Reactor thermal power based on a cecondary side heat balance. Nozzle fouling occurs after prolonged operation at steady power. Applying the results of study (a final report will be presented folicwing the outage) will take place over the next year to improve plant output and heat rate.

Maintenance Workload Backloos (Page 45)

The backlog of noncutage MWOs for mrrective mainte-nance has exceeded the 1994 monthly goal of a maxi-mum of 400 since August 1994.

Per cent of Totaf MWO's Comoleted oer month identified as Rework (Page 47)

Rework as identified has exceed the FCS goal of <:3%.

End of Management Attention Report.

r l

i

[

vi

Table of Contents / Summary Ease i

GOALS

...........................................x i

s I.

5 SAFE OPERATIONS f

Industrial Safety Accident Rate - INPO 2

f b

Disabling Injury /IllnessCases i

Frequency Rate 3

i Recordable Injury / Illness Cases frequence Rate 4

i Clean Controlled Area Contaminations

>1.000 Disintegrations /Minuteper Probe Area 5

i Preventable /PersonnelError LERs 6

l Safety System Failures 7

i Safety System Performance-High Pressure Safety Injection System 8

l Auxiliary Feeckater System 9

i Emergency AC Power System 10 Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability................................

11 Reliability (25 Demands) 12 l

Unreliability 13 I

i Fuel ReliabilityIndicator 14 f

Control Room Equipment Deficiencies 15 Collective Radiation Exposure 16

[

Maximum Individual Radiation Exposure 17 Vi ol ati on Trend...................................... 18 i

Significant Events 19 i

Number of Missed SurveillanceTests Resulting in LERs 20 1

l l

I vii i

i J

j

(

=

PERFORMANCE

!3GE i

L' Station Net Generation 22-I; Forced Outage Rate 23 Unit Capacity Factc ?

24 L

Equivalent Availab111tyFactor 25 Unit Capability Factor 26 L

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 27 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrans per 7.000 Hours Critical 28 Unplanned Safety System Actuations l

INP0 Definition 29' NRC Definition 30 Gross Heat Rate 31 Thermal Performance 32 Daily Thermal Output 33 Equipment Forced Outages per 1.000 Critical Hours 34 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary 35 Repeat Failures 36 Volume of Low-Level Solid RadioactiveWaste 37 Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit 38 Secondary System Chemistry 39 COST Cents Per Kilowatt Hour 41 Staffing Level 42 Spare Parts Inventory Value 43 viii a-__-_

DIVISION AND DEPARTNENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage 45 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue 46 Percentage of Total HW0s Completed per mnth identified as Rework 47 Overtime 48 Procedural Noncompliance Incidents 49 Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities 50 In.Line ChemistryInstruments0ut of Service 51 Hazardous Waste Produced 52 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area 53 Radiological Work Practices Program 54 Document Review 55 Loggable/ReportableIncidents (Security) 56 Modifications Temporary 57 Outstanding 58 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown 59 Engineering Change Notices Status 60 Open 61 Licensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown 62 Licensed Operator RequalificationTraining 63 License Candidate Exams 64 Open Corrective Action Reports and Incident Reports 65 Cycle 16 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status 66 Outage Modification Planning 67 Progress of 1994 On-Line Modification Planning 68 ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTIONLIST Action Plans 70 Perfo-mance Indicator Definitions 73 Safety Enhancement Program Index 80 Report DistributionList 82 ix

i OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS i

Vice President - 1995 Priorities MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through the professional use of nuclear technology. The Company shall conduct these operations prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, saftty and protection of all per-sonnel, the general public and the environment.

GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj; 3 & 4 A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-sonal initiative and open communication.

1995 Priorities:

- Impmve SALP ratings.

- Improve INPO rating.

- Reduce NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.

- No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Objectives to support SAFE OPERATIONS.

OBJECTIVE 1-1:

No challenges to a nuclear safety system.

P OBJECTIVE 1-2:

Conduct activities in accordance with applicable policies, technical specifications, pmcedures, standing orders and work instructions.

- Less than 1.4 NRC violations per 1,000 inspection hours.

- Fewer significant Corrective Action Documents (CADS) originating from activities.

OBJECTIVE 1-3:

Identify conditions BEFORE they affect plant safety and reliability.

OBJECTIVE 1-4:

Achieve all safety-related 1995 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator Repon.

OBJECTIVE 1-5:

Zero lost Time Injuries and recordable injuries rate BELOW l.5 percent.

Goals Scurce: Scofield (Manager)

L I

X

i l

GOAL 2: PERFORMANCE Suppons: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2 and Goal 4, Obj: 1 i

Achieve high standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power production.

1995 PRIORITIES:

- Impmve Quality, Professionalism and Teamwork.

- Impmve Plant Reliability.

- Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

- Reduce the number of Human Performance errors.

- Identify Programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment.

Objectives to support PERFORMANCE:

OBJECTIVE 2-1:

Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 79% and a unit capability factor of 81%.

OBJECTIVE 2-2:

Execute the 1995 refueling outage in 49 days; emphasize shutdown plant safety.

L i

OBJECTIVE 2 3:

Achieve all performance related 1995 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator i

Repon.

OBJECTIVE 2-4.

All projects and programs are planned, scheduled, and accomplished according to schedules, l

resource constraints, and requirements.

OBJECTIVE 2-5:

i Team / Individual ownership, accountability, performance and teamwork is evident by improved plant reliability; improved ratings both INPO and NRC; reduced number of human per-l formance errors and identifkation of performance problems by effective self assessment andfor individuals as measured by the successful completion of department goals & objectives l

and other specific measures.

k XI

GOAL 3: COSTS Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 2, Obj; 1,2 and 3 and Goal 6, Obj: 1 i

Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear genera-tion as an economically viable contribution to OPPD's " bottom line". Cost consciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

1995 Priorities:

- Maintain total O & M and Capital expenditures widda budget.

- Streamline work processes to improve cost effectiveness.

Objectives to support COSTS:

OBJECTIVE 3-1:

Conduct the nuclear programs, projects, and activities within the approved Capital and O & M budgets.

OBJECTIVE 3-2:

Implement nuclear related Opportunity Review recommendations according to approved sched-ules and attain the estimated cost savings.

i.

l l

t Goals Source: Scofield (Manager) xii i

---m

+-m-a-

SAFE OPERATIONS Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individu-als demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and j

personal initiative and open communication 1

1 i

-e-Yearecete Fcs insustriot safety Acci cent Race (mPO Dennison) l

-m-Average Reis (t. net 12 ponths)

-*-- FCS Year 4nd Goal (<0.80) l GOOD l 0.6

-e-inountry upper ios (osts thru ss4)

-e-1995 MPO Industry Goes (<0.90) 0.4 -

t 0.2 -

c 2

C c

a 0:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE - INPO As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication ' Detailed Descriptions of World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other Indicators for Use at U.S.

Nuclear Power Plant': "The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."

The INPO industrial safety accident rate value year to date was 0.0 at the end of February 1995. The value for the 12 months from March 1,1994, through February 28,1995, was 0.42.

There were no lost-time accidents and no restricted-time accidents in February 1995.

There has been no restricted and no lost-time accidents during the year 1995.

i The values for this indicator are determined as follows:

(number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 i

(number of station person-hours worked)

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is 50.50. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 50.50.

i The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the period from 7/93 through 6/94) is 0.12.

i Data Source:

Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Conner Adverse Trend: None 2

i i

1.2 --

-+-1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency

-e-1994 Disabling injuryntiness Frequency 1+

-*- Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l Good l

-+-Fort Calhoun Goal 0.8 -

\\

"S A.

A.

0.2 -

0:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shows the 1995 disabling injuryhtiness frequency rate. The 1994 disabling injury / illness frequency rate is also shown.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year to date was 0.85 at the end of February 1995. There was one disabling injury / illness reported for the month.

There has been one disabling injury in 1995. This disabling injury occurred as the result of an employee climbing stairs. When he got to the top step, he placed his foot down on other side of a ledge, and twisted his ankle.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from March 1,1994, through February 1995, was 0.56.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.5.

Date Source:

Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Conner Adverse Trend: None SEP 25,26 & 27 3

2.5.

--+-- 1995 Recordable injury /Hiness Frequency - 1994 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency

-e-- Average Rate (Last 12 Months) 2-

-Fort Calhoun Goal Y

1.75 -

1:

1.5 :

2 1.25 1

0.75 -

0.5 -

0.25 +

i Os Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shows the 1995 recordable injury / illness frequency rate.

The 1994 recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is also shown.

A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personnel from any of the Nuclear Division are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis.

There have been two recordable injury / illness cases in 1995. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year to date was 1.71 at the end of February 1995.

There were two recordable injury / illness cases reported for the month of February: (1) a fall on ice resulting in a sore left wrist and (2) a security officer broke a tooth while practicing self defense tactics.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from March 1, 1994, through February 28,1995, was 1.39.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.5.

Data Source:

Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 4

=

This performance indicator has been cancelled and will be replaced by a new graph in next month's report.

CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS /

MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

This includes the contamination events associated wiih the spent fuel rerack project.

There were 0 contamination events in January 1995. There has been a total of 0 con-tamination events in 1995.

The 1995 year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum of 54 contamination events.

Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None.

SEP 15 & 54 5

l mas Personnel Errors (Esch Month) 2

-+- Preventable (18 Months Totals)

-e-Personnel Error (18 Month Totals) 20 18 16 -

14 i

12 10 +

=

6-4-

2-E E

E E

E 0

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan I

1993 1994

,gg PREVENTABLEIPERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator depicts 18-month totals for numbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel Error" LERs.

The graph shows the 18-month totals for preventable LERs, the 18-month totals for

{

Personnel Error LERs and the Personnel Error totals for each month. The LERs are trended based on the LER event date as opposed to the LER report date.

i in January 1995, there were no events which was subsequently reported as an LER.

No LERs were categorized as Preventable or as a Personnel Error.

The total preventable / personnel error LERs for the year 1995 (through January 31, i

1995) is zero. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1995 is zero. The total Preventable LERs for the year is zero.

1 The 1995 goal for this indicator are that the year-end values for the 18-month totals be no more than 12 Preventable and 5 Personnel Error LERs. (Note: Because this indicator is based on an 18-month period, the 1994 year-end totals will include LERs occurring in 1995,1994 and the last 5 months of 1993).

Date Source:

Trausch/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None I

6 i

O startup G

Shutdown IGOODI

,4-Operation e

3-

- Industry Average Trend 3 2-x

\\

j1-2 y

- ; 7 5

o

'Y.

i i

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 Year-Ouarter SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

The following NRC safety system failures occurred between the first quarter of 1993 and the first quarter of 1994:

First Quarter 1993: The SG low pressure scram signal block reset values, for all 4 channels of both SGs, were greater than the allowed limits, rendering this scram input inoperable during certain operating conditions.

l Second Quarter 1993: A section of the piping configuration for the borated water source of the safety injection system was not seismically qualified. This could have i

resulted in a failure of the system to meet design requirements during a seismic event.

Fourth Quarter 1993: 1) During surveillance testing, both PORVs forthe LTOP system failed to open during multiple attempts. The failures were a result of differential expan-sion caused by a loop seal, inappropriate venting line back pressure, and cracked valve disks; 2) Calibration errors of the offsite power low signal relays could have prevented offsite power from tripping and the EDGs from starting in the required amount of time during a degraded voltage condition; 3) Both AFW pumps were inoperable when one l

was removed from service for testing and the control switch for the other pump's steam supply valve was out of the auto position; 4) Only one train of control room ventilation was placed in recirc when both toxic gas monitors became inoperable. Later during surveillance, the other train auto-started and brought outside air into the control room for i

a six minute period.

First Quarter 1994: A design basis review determined that an ESF relay could result in loss of safety injection and spray flow, due to premature actuation of recirculation flow.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 7

l E

1995 Monthly High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value l

1995 Year-to-Date High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value IGOODl 0

1995 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.004) i V

--A--

1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.02)

-D-Industry Upper 10% (0.0011) 0.03 -

0.025 -

i 0.02 -

A A

0.015 -

0.01 -

[

05-0.0022 c

0 0

o E

D,",O,0,O,C,O,O,O,O,O,O, I

i 0 1994 Unavailability Value Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM i

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the report-ing month.

I The High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value for the month of Febru-ary 1995 was 0.0007. There was 1.03 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months of planned unavailability for surveillance tests, and no hours of unplanned unavailability, during the month. The 1995 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 0.0003 at the end of the month. The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.0023.

l There has been no hours of unplanned unavailability for the HPSI system in 1995.

i The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.004.

l The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.02 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the l

three year period from 7/91 through 6/94)is approximately 0.001.

Data Source: Jaworski/Schaffer I

Accountability: Jaworski/Schaffer Positive Trend 8

l

E Monthy Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value 1995 Year-to-Date Auxiliary Feedwater System

UnavailabilityValue

--O-1995 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.01) lGOODI Y 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 0.025)

C Industry Upper 10% (0.0021) 0.025-A A

A A

0.02-0.015 -

0.01 -

C O

O O

0.005-0.0028 C

C C

C O

N kN O

- i e

i i

e i

i i

1994 Unavailability Value Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM l

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE i

This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value for February 1995 was 0.0018.

There were 1.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of planned and no hours of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date unavailcbility value was 0.0018 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.0027 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 1.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of unplanned unavailability for the auxiliary feedwater system in 1995.

t L

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.01.

l The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value is i

approximately 0.002.

Data Source: Jaworski/Nay Accountability: Jaworski/Nay Positive Trend g

1 l

E Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value

--et-Year-to-Date Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value O

Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) t

-A-1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) g,g7_

-O-Industry Approximate Upper 10% (0.0035) gy_

0.05-0.04 -

0.03 -

O.02-0.01 -

0 4

i i

1 4

i i

i e

i i

i Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE I

This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for February 1995 was 0.0045.

I During the month, there were 6.0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of planned unavailability for testing, and 0.0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of unplanned unavailability. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.0045 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.01 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 12.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of unplanned unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1995.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicatoris a maximum value of 0.024.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.0035.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 10 4

Number of Failures /20 Demands Trigger Values for 20 Demands O

Number of Failures /50 Demands

-V-Trigger Values for 50 Demands E

Number of Fayures/100 Demands Trigger Valusa for 100 Demands 8-l GOOD l

+

6-Y Y

Y Y

Y

?

Y Y

4-0 O

2 2-1 1

1 1

1 11 111 11 g

g z

q 5

i,

", h'l h^B,0 00 $

00 00 00g 001,00*

00 00 00 d

0 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 Jan Feb95 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger val-ues. The Fort Calhoun 1995 goalis to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands L

and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manual initiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a mini-mum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other demand criteria in the Definition Section of this report).

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend 11 1

L O

DG-1 Failures /25 Demands 1 GCOD I E

DG-2 Failures /25 Demands y

5-

-4!>--

Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goal 4-C O

O O

3-2-

1 1

1 1-00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0

0 0

I i

i l

i I

i i

I I

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands. A trigger value of 4 failures within the last 25 demands is also shown. This trigger value of 4 failures within 25 demands is the Fort Calhoun goal for 1995.

It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more failures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the -

Definitions Section of this report. A System Engineering instruction has been approved forthe Fod Calhoun Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMARC actions.

Diesel Generator DG-1 has experienced one failure during the last 25 demands on the unit. On December 8,1994, DG-1 failed its monthly surveillance test because the inlet air damper would not open. The cause of the failure was found to be ice buildup on the damper louvers from a previous snowstorm.

Diesel Generator DG-2 has not experienced any failures during the last 25 demands on-the unit.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend 12

3 DG.1 Unreliability Value DG-2 Unreliability Value

- + - - Station Unreliability Value lGOODI

--C}--

1995 Goal 0.0s -

- ' ^#

0.07 -

0.06-0.

0.05-C D

O.04 -

}

0.03 -

- r 0.02-y 0.01 -

9 7 9 -;h' 7 9 7 0,

0 97979-;--97 9 79--9 7 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY i

The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, operation and test practices in controlling genera-tor unreliauility.

The year-to-date station EDG unreliability value at the end of February 1995 was 0.00.

The 1995 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.05.

i

)

For DG-1: There were 4 start demands for the reporting month without a failure.

in addition, there was 1 load-run demand without a failure.

For DG-2: There were 6 start demands for the reporting month without a failure.

In addition, there was 1 load-run demand without a failure.

t Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessful load-runs l

number of valid load-run demands i

Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values I

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 13

f Fuel ReliabilityIndicator l

A 1995 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 X 10-4 Microcuries/ Gram)

GOOD E

i Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The Fuel Reliability indicator (FRI) value for February 1995 was 20.32 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram. The purpose of the FRI is to monitor industry progress in achieving ars! maintaining a high level of fuel integ-

]

rity.

The February Fuel Reliability Indicator (FRI) value,20.32 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram, which is greater than the INPO zero defect threshold value, indicates potential deiects in the core. Fission product activity data from Cycle 15 full power operation, power reductions and shutdowns show a steady Xenon-133 activity increase and minimal lodine spiking.

The plant operated at full power during the first ten days of the month and above 95% until the 16th. A shutdown occurred on the 21st of February. The February FRI was calculated based on the average fission prrduct activities present in the reactor coolant during the steady state full power operation days, February 1 through 16.

The February Fri value of 20.32 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram indicated an increase, from the January value of 15.69 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram. The 20.32 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram exceeds the 1995 operational goal.

Fission product activity data from February full power operation showed a slight Xenon-133 activity increase but no iodine spiking. The Westinghouse technical expert on fuel reliability concluded that there is most likely one or two defective fuel assemblies (operated at core average assembly power levels) in the Cycle 15 core. This prediction is based on a change in the Xe-133 to 1-131 ratio and the Cs-134 to Cs-137 ratio determined during reactor coolant chemistry analysis performed during the 24-hour period following shutdown.

i Siemens Power Corporation was selected to provide failed fuelinspection services consisting of sipping and ultrasonic testing, and Westinghouse the fuel vendor, was notified that a reconstitution effort would i

be required.

The INPO September 1992 report,

Performance Indicators for US Nuclear Utility Industry" (INPO NO.92-011) states that "the 1995 industry goal for fuel reliability is that units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects. A value larger than 5 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects. The determination of current defect free operation requires more sophisticated analysis by utility reactor engineers." The value of 5.0 x 10-4 microcuries/ gram is defined as a " Fuel Defect Reference" number or a "Zero Leaker Threshold." Each utility will evaluate whether the

+

core is defect free or not. The 1995 Fort Calhoun Station FRI Performance Indicator goal is to maintain a rnonthly FRl below 5.0 x 10-4 microcures/ gram.

Data Source: Holthaus/ Weber Accountability: Chase /Spijker i

Adverse Trend: An Adverse Trend is indicated based on continued increases in the FR1 value.

14

Q Control Room Equipment Deficiencies Repairable On-Line lGOODI O

Total Number of Control Room Equipment Deficiencies V

80-

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal For Total Equipment Deficiencies I

E 70-

~

i 80_

,7 g-a-::

-::-::- 5 j

3

}

"[

30-h k

I I

k t

m 0

i i

e i

i i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 S

Operator Work Around items Repairable On-Line O

Total Number of Operator Work Around items 14 -

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal for Total Operator Work Around items j

2-10-8-

8:

c c

0 0

o-o O

a-a-o A,,,

n,n,n,n,3,3 2-3 a,R i

0 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the number of control room equipment deficiencies that are repair-able during plant operations (on-line), the number of outstanding control room equip-ment deficiencies, the number of Operator Work Around (OWA) Items repairable on-line, the number of outstanding OWAs and the Fort Calhoun goals.

P There was a total of 62 control room equipment deficiencies at the end of Febnjary 1995.16 of these deficiencies are repairable on-line and 46 require a plant outage to repair.

There were 11 OWA items identified at the end month on equipment tags: VA-46A on C/R Panel Al-106A; CH-208, FIA-3115, PT-3196, RC-3A-1, RC-3C and RC-3D on C/R Panel CB-1/2/3; FW-54,, HIC-1180, and MOV-D1 on C/R Panel CB-10/11; and M/0500 on C/R Panel CB-4. 9 OWAs require an outage to repair.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 45 deficiencies and 5 OWAs. This indicator is expected to be within the goal following the 1995 refueling outage.

Data Source: Chase / Tills (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Adverse Trend: None 15

Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure l GOOD l

-e

. Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure V

-O-Fort Calhoun Goa!(151 Person-Rem) 150-C O

O O

140-130-120-110-100-h 90-e e0-70-j g 60-l 50-j 40-30-20-10-e 0

Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE i

The 1995 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure is less than 151 l

person-Rem.

The exposure for February 1995 was 14.939 person-Rem.

The year-to-date exposure was 16.263 person-Rem.

The 1995 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 185 person-rem per year. The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the three-year period from 7/91 through 6/94) is 106 person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Cal.-

houn Station for the three years from 3/92 through 2/95 was 128.581 person-rem per year.

f Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP54 l

16 a

O Highest Exposure for the Month (mrem)

O Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem)

E OPPD4500 mrem /yearUmit

~

OPPD 4500 mRemlyr. Umit 4000-3000-2000-Fort Calhoun 1,000 mrem /yr. Goal 1000-390 390 D'#

~

0 February 1995 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE During February 1995, an individual accumulated 390 mrem, which was the highest individual exposure for the month.

The maximum individual exposure for the year was 390 mrem at the end of February.

The OPPD limit for the maximum yearly individual radiation exposure is 4,500 mrem /

year. The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goalis a maximum of 1,000 mrem.

Date Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None 17

M FCs Cit.d VI.R.S..a (Me.thM Crcs.. 4 nee vl sam.. tu thm

+FCS Cu.d V4 4.ta..s (134 4.v.eage) l v

l 12 +

" N_

=

l a+

=

/

~

w

=

l Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan see.

VIOLATION TREND This new indicator illustrates a 12-month trend for Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations, Non-Cited Violations. Additionally, Cited Violations for the Top Quartile plant in Region IV will be trended. The Fort Calhoun Station cited and non-cited violations will be illustrated monthly for the past 12 months.

The trend for the top quartile Region IV plant will lag two-three months behind the Fort Calhoun Station violation trend. This is necessary to compile the information from the other Region IV plants.

IER No.

Title 95-02 Resident Monthly inspection To date, OPPD has received no violations for inspections conducted in 1995.

Level lli Violations (0)

Level IV Violations (0)

Level V Violations (0)

Non-Cited Violations (0)

The 1995 Fort Calhoun Station goal for this performance indicator is to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile in Region IV.

i Date Source:

Trausch/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Trausch i

l Adverse Trend: An adverse trend is indicated based on not meeting the goal.

4 l

18 l

O NRC Significant Events lGOODI Industry Average Trend 37 1

1 l

TF 0.5 - y gg e

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 Year - Quarter E INPO Significant Events (SERs) lGOODI 1P 2-3 3

3 3

1 f~

E EE EE i

e i

i i

a i

i i

i 91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 Year - Ouarter SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator illustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Calhoun Station as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report and INPO's Nuclear Network.

The following NBQ significant events occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the First quarter of 1994:

Second Quarter 1991: Safety related electrical equipment was not adequately protected from a high energy line break.

Third Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code safety valve to rescat initiated a LOCA with the potential to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

The following INPO significant events, as reported in Significant Everst Reports (SERs), oc-curred between the fourth quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1994:

Second Quarter 1992: Intake of Transuranics during Letdown Filter Change-out.

Third Quarter 1992: 1) RC-142 LOCA; and 2) Premature Lift of RC-142.

First Quarter 1993: Inoperability of Power Range Nuclear Instrumentation Safety Channel D.

Second Quarter 1993: SBFU Breaker Relay (Switchyard) Plant Trip Fourth Quarter 1993: Unexpected CEA Withdrawal.

First Quarter 1994: Unplanned dilution of Boron concentration in the RCS.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accentability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 19

3-i i

@ Missed STs Resulting in LERs l

I 2-t i

i 1-0 0

0

,0 93 94 Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 j

NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows the yearly totals for the indicated years.

There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during February 1995.

On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not entered for Steam Generator level per Surveillance Requirements.

?

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is 0.

I Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 60 & 61 20

I P

v f

1 PERFORMANCE i

Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the highest standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that result in safe, reliable plant operation in power produc-tion.

l i

4 21

50 E Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) i l

40 1

36.2 35.66 3621 36.22 34'

.5

.88 34.81 33.91 34.14 33.88 y

...,4 N '

,g g 30

'2

~

-l j

I y.

k s

v g

o};

?.

g3,g

$20 3

'a-

[^7

..D i f.T f;:

[L

.'.1 F;fM.- E..i :.. i

. L; h

~ ~

10

$ %g; >(1 1

L

.t 9

$ ; hy

. b i

0, Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 STATION NET GENERATION During the month of February 1995, a net total of 211,926 MWH was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 15 was 5,043,886 at the end of the month. Planned energy losses for the month were attributable to the coastdown for the refueling outage which began on February 20.

1 Unplanned energy losses for the month of February 1995 were attributable to a problem with the control element assembly seal leakage, which prompted the decision to begin the 1995 refueling outage earlier than planned.

Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 22

-+-Forced outage Rate

-+-Fort Calhoun Goal (2A%)

10%-

4 8%-

6%-

4%-

ims 2%:

5 5

=

087%

' E" 0%

92 93 94 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 1994 1995 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 0.0% for the twelve months from March 1,1994, through February 28,1995. The 1995 year-to-date FOR was 0.0% at the end of the month.

During the month of February, Fort Calhoun Station operated at a nominal 100% power until February 18. A plant shutdown was initiated when the bleedoff temperature of Control Element Drive Mechanism #35 increased beyond 240 degrees F. The shutdown marked the strart of the plant's 15th refueling outage,19 days prior to the originally scheduled start date.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 2.4%.

Data Source:

Monthly Operations Report Accountability: Chase Positive Trend i

23

I l

Ottonody Unit Capacity Factor

-e-Cycle 15 Unit Capacity Factor 120 % -

-*--364tonth Averspe Unit Capselty Factor

+ FC8 Goat

,00%.

m T

a 60% -

40% +

20%

0%

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 1994 1995 UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capacity Factor, the Unit Capacity Factor for the current fuel cycle and the 36-month average Unit Capacity Factor.

The Unit Capacity Factor of February 1995 was reported as 66.0%. During the month of February, Fort Calhoun Station operated at a nominal 100% power until February 18.

A plant shutdown was initiated when the bleedoff temperature of Control Element Drive Mechanism #35 increased beyond 240 degrees F. The shutdown marked the start of l

the plant's 15th refueling outage,19 days prior to the originally scheduled start date.

At the end of the month, the Cycle 15 Unit Capacity Factor was 90.1%, and the Unit j

Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 79.8%.

The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows:

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH)

Maximum Dependable Capacity (Mwe) X Gross Hours in the Reporting Period Data Source:

Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Positive Trend

)

i 24 l

u O

Q Monthly EAF Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF 4

i IGOODl Industry Median Value (76.7% for a

--B-Three Year Average)

] 100 %

7 7

9 w

m 1

W;g.

$?

05 kp

@W wp g

a 4

7 n

v.

+

5{h JJ L

Wi M

W.

?

W

)

m 9

i}y h

V

$l k

Y

, L v

ft L

b f5 80%-

a 2

it 76.2 f~;

l#

7 7

7

=

7 7

n X

lW

$k b

kh a%

9 F.

w m

m

~

4 q

m.

hk 60%-

i ces h

fkd h i

bh h$

k Y

a A

dE S

y-e u

-a t

w w

g g:

a M

i a

s g

a

%y 1

g g

<!s#

n S

-,c 2

s g+e.

r si n

d, g

&w wj w

x

-go

,4 y

1 3, :

4 n

e n

w.

a 40%- h h

h.s h I

k,h h

h> k k w

m y

y p

g y

9{

y ps

)9$

& (

$};

2

[

M

$y d

m 4".

sg

~

g g

a p

g 4

g 4;&

3 L

20%-

c s

F B

h e

M 41 %

Wi 3ls R

g up wi n

u.

g

.py a

Q gj

- +

x k

D 7

n SW U

9af hj@

"Q 1

d

S g".t

T I@

4 u

^

~

^h

~

^

0%

i i

e i

i i

i a

i e

i

'92

'93

'94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 EQUlVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF, and the year-end average monthly EAF for the previous 3 years.

The EAF for February 1995 was reported as 63.3%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 81.7% at the end of the month.

Unplanned energy losses for the month of February 1995 were due to a problem with a control element assembly sea! leakage of reactor coolant, which prorys d the decision to begin the 1995 refueling outage earlier than planned. Planned ene.sy losses for the month were attributable to the coastdown for the refueling outage.

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the three years prior to this report was 80.3%. The industry median EAF value for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93 was 76.7%.

Data Source: Dietz/Parra (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None

Monthly Unit Capability Factor

-W-Year-to-Date Unit Capability Factor

- +-- 36 Month Average Unit Capability Fa:: tor 4

0 1994 and1995 Fort Calhoun Goals l GOOD l 1994 and1995 INPO Industry Goals ( 80%)

Industry Upper 10% (89.9% for a Three Year Average) 100 % -

-A r

ar w

=r 95%- $

7 E

6 g

Q m

a g

?

% N i

C:

E N

b g

pjjfy f

&g b

2

d 4

j*i s&

90%- e W

N F

i g

gh

$P.-g4 g@

85%-

4 i

80%_ g = a = e = g = e e

=

t.

i

%m f.f V

E~

7 p

4.)-

75%- W

~~~

~

m m-Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the year-to-date UCFs, the 36 month average UCFs, and the UCF goals. UCF is defined as the ratio of the available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continu-ously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refueling periods excluded).

The UCF for February 1995 was reported as 88.6%. The year-to-date UCF was 94.5%,

the UCF for the last 12 months was 98.8%, and the 36-month average UCF was re-ported as 81.2% at the end of the month.

Unplanned energy losses for the month of February 1995 were due to a problem with a control element assembly seal leakage of reactor coolant, which prompted the decision to begin the 1995 refueling outage earlier than planned. Planned energy losses for the month were attributable to the coastdown for the refueling outage.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 80% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 7/91 through 6/94) is approximately 89.9%. The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a minimum of 79.65%.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Positive Trend 26

20%-

B Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

-st-Year-to-Date Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 15%-

O Fort Calhoun Goal (3.97%)

t 1995 INPOIndustry Goal (4.5%)

10%-

Industry Upper 10% (1.36% for a Three Year Average) 5%-

C O'

O O

g A

e e

a y

i i

i i " i l

r Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the year-to-date UCLF and the goal. UCLF is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions), expressed as a percentage.

The UCLF for the month of February 1995 was reported as 4.4%. An unplanned energy loss was reported during the period from February 18 to February 21,1995, of 15,147 Mwh. The year-to-date UCLF was 2.1%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 0.34%,

and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 5.74% at the end of the month.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 4.5% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 7/91 through 6/94) is approximately 1.36%. The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 3.97%.

i Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Positive Trend 27 i

FCs Reactor scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical Year-to<$ ate

+ FCs Reactor Scrarns Per 7,000 Hours Criticalfor the last 36 rnonths

~

l

-O-1995 &1994 Fort Calhoun Goals (0.0) 5-

--a-1995 INPO Industry Goal r

Industry Upper 10% (0.48 per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical over a 36 rnonth time 4-Period) 3-p.

1-4 4

4 A

A A

A

^

C C

O O

i 0-O O

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 4-3-

E Numberof FCS Reactor scrams 2

2-i l

1 1-0 R

0 0

io

.. i i s

i

'91 '92 '93 '94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical (as defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Interna-tional Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Cal-houn Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months.

The year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of February 1995. The value for the 12 months from March 1,1994, through February 28,1995, was 0.0. The value for the last 36 months was 1.97.

I The 1995 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. The 1995 INPO industry goal is a maximum of 1 unplanned automatic reactor scram per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.48 scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical for the 36-month time period from 7/91 through 6/94.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Ucensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Chase Positive Trend 28

~

E Safety System Actuations (INPO Definition)

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0) l C

Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-b 1-j O

O C

O, C C

C

,C C,C C

C, C

C i

i i

'92'93'94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 -

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS-(INPO DEFINITION)

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of February 1995.

There was 1 INPO unplanned safety system actuation during the month of February 1994. It occurred on February 11 when supervisory relay 86B/CPHSS failed, which resulted in tripping relay 86B/CPHS. The CPHS relay trip actuated the Safety injection Actuation Signal, Containment isolation Actuation Signal, Ventilation isolation Actuation Signal and Steam Generator isolation Signal. The Steam Generator Isolation Signal automatically closed both main steam isolation valves, which resulted in a concurrent turbine and reactor trip.

An INPO unplanned safety system actuation occurred during the month of July 1992. It was due to the loss of an inverter and the subsequent reactor trip on 7/3/92.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

l i

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 29 i

12 Month Running Total SSAs (NRC Definition)

Q Safety System Actuations (NRC Definition) 10-E 1995 Goal - O

+ Critical Hours 900

- 800

{

- 700 g

~

Cycle 15 k

"O@

.l

~5 u> 4 ~

400

- 300 t

g g

2~

200 y

0

'92 '93 '94 MA M J J A SO N D J FM A M J J A SO N D J F 1993 1994 1995 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emer-gency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of SSAs includes actuations when major equipment is operated and when the logic systems for these safety systems are challenged.

There was 1 NRC unplanned safety system actuation during the month of February 1994. It occurred on February 11 when supervisory relay 86B/CPHSS failed, which resulted in a concur-rent turbine and reactor trip.

There were 3 NRC unplanned safety system actuations in 1993: 1) In December 1993 the main turbine and reactor tripped during Electro-Hydraulic Control pump start testing; 2) in June 1993 the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip; and 3) In April 1993 a non-licensed operator mistakenly opened the wrong potential fuse drawer, causing a low voltage alarm on bus 1 A1, a loadshed on bus 1 A1 and an auto start of an EDG.

There were 4 unplanned safety system actuations in 1992: 1) In August, due to the failure of an AC/DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system, pressurizer safety valve RC-142 opened prior to reaching design pressure during a plant transient and trip; 2) On July 3 there was an inverter failure and the subsequent reactor trip; 3) On July 23 there was an unplanned diesel generator start when an operator performing a surveillance test inadvertently pushed the normal start button instead of the alarm acknowledge button; and 4) in May the turbine generator tripped on a false high level moisture separator trip signal which caused a simultaneous reactor trip and subsequent anticipatory start signal to both diesel generators.

There has been no unplanned safety system actuation in the last 12 months. The 1995 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Ucensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 30

E Monthly Gross Heat Rate Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate O

1994 81995 Fort Calhoun Goals 10.5-l 10300 10223 10.25-10176 0

g v

8*-

10-9.75-i i

i i

'91

'93

'94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the Gross Heat Rate (GHR) for the reporting month, the year-to-date GHR, the goals and the year-end GHR for the previous 3 years.

1 The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,088 for the month of January 1995.

The year-to-date GHR was 10,053.

The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In general, the GHR im-proves during the winter months and degrades during the summer. This is because the gross heat rate is not normalized to the design river water temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is s10,157.

Data Source: Holthaus/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Positive Trend: Based on performance below goal value.

31

B Monthly Thermal Perforrnance

--44--

Year-to-Date Average Monthly Therrnal Performance O

12. Month Amrage Thermal Performance

--+-- 1995 Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%)

4 a

1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 99.5%)

lgl D

Industry Upper 10% (99.9%)

100 % -

D-D --

D-D-

-D'

-D=

D'

^D-

- D--

D>

D~

-O

?

i

?

a cw T

M

t h

h 5

k

$NC

}

=

7 99%-

4 Sy; g

4 W

7 m

g:sr z

7; x

y y

g

.,1 b*$

kh.e:'

$4 l/

h lhhk' A

dh bb r

gg

..:.3 g;:

gg..

$be 5,.h

'24,

a m

u'3

e:o

ss r?

a eq J,

y

$3 4

%w

$I E

01 d.,

g 4

de

"m 98 %

~~

Mar 94 Apr May Jun

. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 THERMAL PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Thermal Performance value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value, the Fort Calhoun goals, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value.

The thermal performance value for February 1995 was 99.05%. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value was 99.06% at the end of the month. The average monthly value for the 12 months from March 1,1994, through January 31, 1995 was 99.3%.

Initial results from testing to verify FW flow requirements indicates biased results from plant instruments is causing the thermal performance indicator to be under-reported.

i Corrections to the indicator will be made upon completion of the FW Flow Nozzle Foul-ing Study.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a minimum of 99.6%. The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal was a minimum of 99.5%. The 1995 INPO industry goalis 99.5% and the industry upper 10 percentile value (for the 1-year period from 7/93 through 6/94) is approximately 99.9%.

Data Source: Jaworski/Popek Accountability: Jaworski/Popek Adverse Trend: None 32

i O

Thermal Output

--C)--

Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit 1500

>a 4 O

,,7q,,

1400-g

^ '

37

's' i

'l 1300-5 s

ge

~

1200-s

','>s 55 1100-p n - ' '

s s

1000-.

> +

,e,, s Jw-

^

< u

,g

/

\\

900--

n l

l k-

'3 800-s s

s x

700-

+

~

~ '

600-s 500-

s

't',

400-

, s t,

s 300-s 200-

>^

d s

100-s s

t

/

s Ny %

i i i i

. i i i i.

i i

1 3

5 7

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during February 1995, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal.

Unplanned energy losses during the month were due to a problem with a control ele-ment assembly seal leakage of reactor coolant, which prompted the decision to begin l

the 1995 refueling outage earl:er than planned. Planned energy losses for the month I

were attributed to the coastdown for the refueling outage. The generator was taken off-line and the reactor was taken sub-critical on February 20,1995, at which time the FCS 1995 Refueling Outage commenced.

J i

Data Source: Holthaus/Willett (Manager / Source) j l

Accountability: Chase / Tills AdverseTrend: None 33 1

l

i 1-Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critical 0.86 Hours for a 12-Month Interval l GOOD l

)

O 1994 & 1995 Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals ( 0.2)

V 0.6 -

O.4 -

0.2 - C O

O O

0 11 i

O I

i i

iO

'92

'93

'94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 2-E Number of Equipment Forced Outages Per Month 1-0 i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 EQUlPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from March 1,1994, through February 28,1995, was 0.12. The rate per 1,000 critical hours for the month of February 1995 was 0.82.

An equipment forced outage occurred on February 20,1995, when the plant experi-enced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related small leak of reactorcoolant.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicatoris a maximum value of 0.20.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Positive Trend 34

= # of Component Categories g_

--+- # Of APP cation Categories li 35-30-

--h-Total # of Categories

$f 25-en j20-Og 15-A A

10-

^

c 5-DW 6~$

$ $M o

S93 O N

D J94 F M

A M

J J

A S

O N D94 J F95 E WearOut/ Aging Q Other Devices

@ Manufacturing Defect O uaintenance/ Action 0 Engineering / Design E Error / Operating Action 3.9%

5.1%

Percent of Total Failures During

,/

the Past 18 Months p

4.6%

7.6*.III COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total l

categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18 months (from May 1993 through October 1994). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 5 of the 87 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18 months. The station reported a higher failure rate in 5 of the 173 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary /

emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18 months.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 90 failure reports that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station during the past 18 months. Of these, the failure cause was known for 78. The pie chart reflects known failure causes.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/ Frank Adverse Trend: None i

35

--+ - Cornponents With More Than One Failure l GOOD l 25 -

--M--

Components Wah More Than Two Failures i

i 20-15-12 1_2 10-9 8

8 8

7 7

5-4 4

2 2

X

%1 1

1 1

1 i

0 n

n n

n a

i i

i a

i i

a i

e i

n i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 j

REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures Indicator (formerly called the ' Maintenance Effectiveness" perfor-mance indicator) was developed in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/

AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator i

has been dropped, but station management considers it useful to continue to track i

repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS).

i This indicator shows the number of NPRDS components with more than 1 failure during the eighteen month CFAR period and the number of NPRDS components with more than 2 failures during the eighteen month CFAR period.

During the last 18 reporting months there were 4 NPRDS components with more than 1 failure. None of these 4 had more than 2 failures. The tag numbers of the components with more than 1 failure are: AC-10C, CH-1C, NT-001 and RC-374. Recommenda-tions and actions to correct these repeat component failures are listed in the quarterly Component Failure Analysis Report.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 36 i

j

C O

O O

750-O Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

- Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried lGOODI 600-

+ 1995 Fod Calhoun &al For Waste Buried (900 cubic feet)

V 1;; 450-if E

t s

O 300-150-

' J.,,.

cr; T :n^*

,, ~

ws.

l-5

/N

>s-t fii?hik 1' ' '

vg l'l' Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun94 VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative l

annual total for radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the

~

approximate industry upper 10%.

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during January (cubic feet) 2,276 Amount of metals from rack cut-up shipped off-site for processing during January (Ibs.)

30,300 Volume of Solid Radwaste Buried during January (cubic feet) 0.0 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1995 (cubic feet) 0.0 Amount of solid radioactive waste in temporary storage (cubic feet) 0.0 The 1995 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 900 cubic feet. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 110 cubic meters (3,884 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value from 7/91 through 6/94 is approximately 2'7.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet) per year.

i Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP54 37

E Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit IGOODI

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.02)

V l

3%-

T/o-C C

C C

i I

i 1%-

t f

t

@/*

i i

6 4

6 6

6 4

6 6

i Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul

'Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT i

The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the pri-mary system chemistry performance by monitoring 6 key chemistry parameters. The key parameters are: lithium, dissolved oxygen, chlorides, fluoride, hydrogen and sus-pended solids.100% equates to all 6 parameters being out of limit for the month.

The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit was 0% for the month of February 1995.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maxirnum of 2% hours out of l

limit.

Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Positive Trend 38

i E

Secondary System cpl

--O-12-Month Average 4

I I

--*- Fort Calhoun Goal ( 1.4) 1.6 -

i 1.5 -

l 1.4 -

A A

l 1.3 -

l 1.2 -

i 1.1 -

1 4

Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Criteria for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) are:

1) The plant is at greater than 30% power; and 2) the power is changing at less than 5%

perday.

l The CPI for February 1995 was 1.38. Because of plant shutdown, only February 1, 1995, to February 18,1995, were used to calculate the cpl. The CPI is higher this month because on February 8,1995, at 1000 hours0.0116 days 0.278 hours 0.00165 weeks 3.805e-4 months ,'A' Condensate Pump was placed l

In service after maintenance. This caused Steam Generator chlorides and sodium to I

spike and fall to a higher steady state value. These higher values, combined with the shorter than normal reporting period resulted in the increased CPI value for February.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the CPI is a maximum value of 1.40.

l Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Positive Trend 39 l

I i

e i

COST i

Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economically viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line. Cost conscious-i ness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

i l

l 40 i

)

I d

j 4-

- G-Actuals

-O-Budget

-1!r-Plan 3.75 -

)

i l

l 3.5 -

j i

f I

3.25-j r

i O

3-A-

l 2.75-l l

{

2.5

,{

D92 D93 D94 J95 F M

A M

J J

A S

O N D95 D96 D97 D98 D99 l

Months j

i CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR i

The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun

Station, j

The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilowatt hour on a 12-month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve

{

is the approved 1994 and 1995 revised budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

{

i The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1992,1993 and 1994. In l

addition, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1996 through 1999 for refer-l ence. The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the i'

1995 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

l The unit price (2.61 cents per kilowatt hour for January 1995) averaged lower than j

budget due to expenses being below budget while generation exceeds the budget. The unit price for the current month (February 1995) is not available at this time.

l Data Source: Scofield/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

-l Accountability: Scofield l

Positive Trend l

41 l

@ Nuclear Services DMsion Staffing C Production En0ineering Division Staffing G Nuclear Operations Division Staffing B TotalNuclearStaffing 7

8 7

9 0

I 7

7 7

8 3

2 3

5 5

i 4

4 4

6 5

4 h

[j f[

4 3

500-400-

[

f 1

1 1

1 300-l 6 l ! 'l !,j 'l f 'i l 4' W

i y3

}

1 1-u 1_

3 1_

1_

m 1_

3 200_

4 7

6 FI 6

4 If 5

h 5

h.

3 h

.h-)

h.

k g

Jan91 Jan92 Jan93 Jan94 Apr94 Jul94 Oct94 Dec94 ACTUAL STAFFING LEVEL (UPDATED OUARTERLY)

STAFFING LEVEL The actual staffing leve s for the three Nuclear Divisions are shown on the graph above.

The authorized staffing levels for 1995 are:

1995 Authorized Staffing 440 Nuclear Operations Division 183 Production Engineering Division 116 Nuclear Services Division Data Source: Ponec (Manager & Source)

Accountability: Ponec Adverse Trend: None SEP 24 42

~

t

=4-Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) 17-16-12 h

O

'o 15-E t

i 14 -

13 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of February 1995 was reported as $16,534,794.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Adverse Trend: None 43

DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS l

Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station re-sulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power production.

'I l

J 44

D Conective Maintenance E

Non-Corrective / Plant improvernents 5

Preventive Maintenance

-O--

Fort Calhoun Goal 776 787 784 764 752 720 800-723 691 700-E E

626 617 TT 581 g3 g

600-h

)

500-E

' h R 2 # 3 $ #

R $

200~

'/,

//

'//

'/-

//

'//

'/s

//.

'//

//.

100-

//,

//

'//

'/,

//

'//

'/s

//.

'//

//.

I O

l i

e i

i e

i i

l Feb94 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan95 Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog

[] TotalMWOs

@ MWOs Which Exceed Maintenance Cornpletion Goals l

l 400_

387 l

350-300-250-212 l

200-150-122 100-

>3 50-o 17_

17 days days

' 20

>180 26 0

39_

days K 64 h days Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Aging MA.INTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month. It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and priority. The 1995 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective 1

MWOs. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as:

Goal Priority 1 Emergency N/A Priority 2 Immediate Action 3 days Priority 3 Operations Concem 14 days Priority 4 Essential Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential Corrective 180 days Priority 6 Non-Corrective / Plant improvements N/A Improvements in the maintenance planning and scheduling process will allow more timely responses to maintenance work requests. Implementation is scheduled for 5/1/

95. The large decrease in February is due to completion of many preoutage jobs and moving the remainder into the refueling outage scope.

l j

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber i

Adverse Trend: None SEP 36 45

O Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 100 % -

90% -

80%-

m 70%-

""7""*

i 60%-

30l N$

50%-

M

'^

~~~~

l

.Y:

2Is

-4 7

40%-

a-Np IEd h!i hkk 1

,f n

30%-

mm g

i y

g g

7 y

g h3 20%-

sc v

10%-

W g

v m

0%

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 2%-

O Preventive Maintenance items Overdue l GOOD l

-O--

Fort Calhoun Goal V

1%-

o-- C-0 0

0

_o--o --c 0

o-- c o

I I

0%

i e

i i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE &

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of. completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total completed non-outage maintenance.

The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 80.6% for the month of February 1995.

The lower graph shows the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue.

During February,637 PM items were completed. 2 of these PM items (0.31% of the total) were not completed within the allowable grace period or administratively closed.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue is a maximum of 0.5%.

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Data Source: Chase /Schmitz1Melstad (Manager / Sources)

Positive Trend SEP 41 46 i

E Rswork As identified By Craft 5.9%

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%)

5%-

4.7%

I 4% -

a

- d o

3%-

C O

O O

2.4%

2.5%

E 2%-

1.9%

5 1.6%

o 1%-

/

j Jut 94 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

l This indicator will be calculated from the 15th to the 15th of each month beginning with November 1994. This is due to the delay in closing open MWO's at the end of each month.

43% (6) Required additional work to fix small fluid leaks found during PMT.

7% (:) Required work to be reperformed.

50% (7) Required additional work beyond the scope of the original MWO's.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is <3%.

Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Adverse Trend: None 47

80%-

E Maintenance Overtime

-M-12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime l GOOD l l

~

-O-Fort Calhoun "On-Une' Goal ( 10%)

60%-

[

50%-

I 40%-

i 30%-

20%-

x M

M r,

~,

m m

n 3

10%-

C O

O O

^

e x%

y.pr. F,eI e

m i

i i

e i

i i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the allotted resources.

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 7.3% for the month of February 1995. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 5.18% at the end of the month.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly "on-line" goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 10%.

l Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Adverse Trend: None

\\

48

i t

Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

[

3-PJ Closed irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

E ProceduralNoncomplianceIRs(Maintenance) t 2-l 1

1 1

1 111 1-3 i

i 00 00 000 000 000 000 0

000 000 000 0 0

i 0

i Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)

This indicator shows the number of open Maintenance incident Reports (irs) that are related to the use of procedures, the number of closed irs that are related to the use of l

procedures, and the number of open and closed irs that received procedural noncom-pliance cause codes for each of the last twelve month s.

[

There were no procedural noncompliance incidents for maintenance reported forthe month of February 1995.

l t

I i

Data Source: Chase (Manager) l Accountability: Chase / Conner l

Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 i

i f

i 49

E CompletedScheduled Activities (AllCrafts)

D Numberof EmergentMWOsCompeted O

Fort Calhoun Goal (80%)

e 110

$ 100%-

5; 100 m 5 90 % -

- 90 ii 8 80%-

C 0

0 0

E c

80 o 4

E 70%-

E

- 70 61 O

.g 60%-

58 54 7

- 60 3

//.

53 y

y 50%-

[%:

- 50 E y

yf:

ff.

' //.

o o

. f: % Competed

% Competed !II:

]:s 40%-

% Competed

- 40 9

/

Scheduled

/f, Scheduled Scheduled E

j 35-

j; Activities Not Activities Not ;;fl Activities Not a

Activities Not. j

~

W f

^

Available L'II.

,/fl Available

.ff; Available

fj

- 20 E u 20%-

S 9 10%-

hj:

fe

u.

f 6

'4 hj:

/

//,

10 2

&n W

m M

0 o

0 November December January February 95 PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS)

This indicator shows the percent of the number of completed scheduled maintenance activities as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities concerning all Maintenance Crafts. Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, cali-brations, and miscellaneous maintenance activities. The number of emergent MWOs completed for the month is also shown.

7 The data for this indicator will not be available until 5/1/95 due to software changes required for implementation of the Integrated Plant Schedule.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is 80%.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Adverse Trend: None SEP 33 50

E

% of Hours the in-Line Chemistry Instruments are Inoperable 12-

--O--

1995 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 10%)

{

11-l 10-C O

O O

9-8-

7-6-

}

~

.{

Q.

5-LJ

~;

s,,

'4 4_

4-s 3-2-

I l

7

}

- {

1-w u

=..

m

,i i

i e

i i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE This indicator shows the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments are inoperable for the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indicator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

At the end of February 1995, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments were inoperable was 6.03%.

The entire instrument channel is considered inoperative if: 1) the instrument is inopera-tive, 2) the chart recorder associated with the instrument is inoperative, or 3) the alarm function associated with the instrument is inoperative. If any of the functions listed above are not operational, then the instrument is not performing its intended function.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 10% in-line chemistry instruments inoperable. 5 out-of-service chemistry instruments make up 10%

of all the chemistry instruments that are counted for this indicator.

Data Source: Chase /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski

)

Positive Trend l

51

1 l

Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

Month!y Average Waste Produced During the t.ast 12 Months (Kilograms)

--O-Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

J

-B-Federal & State Monthly Limit (Max. of 1,000 Kg) 1000-

=

800 -

$ 600-L5

@g 400-200 -

O---

---C O

O O

O---

--C O-

---O

/A

//.

/

4 4

4 i

i 4

4 4

4 i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average total for hazard-ous waste produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced.

I During the month of February 1995,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated hazardous waste I

was produced, 0.0 kilograms of halogenated hazardous waste was produced, and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total for hazardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 815.5 kilograms. The monthly average for haz-ardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 67.96 kilograms.

)

Hazardous waste is counted based upon a full drum of waste.

The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly average goal for hazardous waste produced is a maxi-mum of 150 kilograms.

j Data Source: Chase /Carlson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Positive Trend 52

E Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal (non-outage rnonths)

V 12%-

)

C O

O O

~

E' 9%-

rE-y, c:.

.].l'.

l t'

e

.g 6%-

b

[

.3 h4

,' y; -

. [

t-[7 it gy

R 3%-

E:

i,.,

~

.d :s l

."lJ

@bD f;

&f p$..

[O, l S.L.

M,.:.

i..:;.

lmi s-

$9 si.i 1

gg..

g-yga

,,f, in m

n 1

i i

e i

i e

I I

e a

i Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the RCA that is contaminated based on the total square footage. The 1995 monthly non-outage goalis a maximum of 9.5% contami-nated RCA At the end of February 1995, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was contaminated was 9.4%.

i 1

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Positive Trend SEP 54 i

i 53

30-l Numberof Identified PRWPs Year-To-Date V

25 -

.E

-O-1995 Fort Calhoun Goal (<20) 15 2

n C O

O O

f O

3 To 15-I

.9

~

Oj10-E E5 O 5-0 Jan95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec95 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radio-logical Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month.

The number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means to qualitatively assess supervisor accountability for their workers' radiological performance.

1 During the month of February 1995, there were 3 PRWPs identified.

There has been 4 PRWPs in 1995.

The 1995 year-end goal for the number of PRWPs is a maximum of 20.

Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 52 54 e

I

O Documents scheduied sor neview G. Documents Reviewed E Overdue Documents 350 -

300-250 -

200-150 -

/

1M-I E

d b

~

0 I-A Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Security Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Operating Manual.

During February 1995, there were 153 document reviews scheduled, while 98 docu-ment reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 25 document re-views more than 6 months overdue. There were 48 new documents initiated in Febru-ary.

Data Source: Chase /Plath f

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski l

Adverse Trend: None SEP 46 I

55 l

s i

60-

@ System Failures lGOODI 50-40-38 30-26 26 I

23 h

20-16 17 E

17

$$ h !$

h

'~

I i

i i

l i

i i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 16-E Non-Systern Failures GOOD 14-12-10 10-8-

6-5 5

4 4

0 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 LOGG ABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) t The Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator is depicted in two separate charts. The first chart shows the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents concem-Ing system failures which occurred during the reporting month. The second chart de-picts the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authorization, Security Force Error, and Unse-cured Doors.

During the month of January 1995, there were 27 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-fled. System failures accounted for 85% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. Eighteen (18) of the twenty -three (23) system failures were environmental failures due to inclem-ent weather and sun glare. Non-system failures consisted of two (2) unattended secu-rity badge incidents, one (1) tailgating incident, and one (1) security force error.

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Adverse Trend: None SEP 58 1

5 Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old (RFO required for Removal)

O Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line) 8-

- O--

Fort Calhoun Goal for Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal for Temporary Modifications >6 months old G-4 4

4

>ffff 8fff5 hk 2-I y

3 y

/////

'////

' ' ^

o i

4 November '94 December '94 January '95 February '9s TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS This indicator provides information on the number of temporary modifications greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the ranuber of temporary modifications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1995 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are zero, however, specific tempo-rary modifications have been approved by management to exceed these goals due to cost effectiveness considerations. These are listed below.

o There is currently 1 temporary modification that is greater than one fuel cycle old re-l quiring a refueling outage to remove: Epoxy repairs to ST-4B, which is awaiting comple-i tion of MWO 931325, scheduled start date 1995 Refueling Outage. This temporary modification was previously included in the on-line removable >6 months old classifica-tion, but was re-classified as an outage modification to save engineering resources from completing 1 ECN to allow the epoxy repair to remain in place and a second ECN to remove it during the 1995 refueling outage. In addition, at the end of February 1995 there were 4 temporary modifications installed that were greater than six months old that can be removed on-line. These were: 1) Local indication for BAST CH-11 A and CH-11B, in which Operations is reviewing a draft FLC. After review, Licensing is to issue an FLC, and the NRC is to approve; 2) Swap leads for DG-1 outage; and 3) Rub-ber patch on surface sluice line, which is awaiting completion of MWO 940774, has been re-scheduled for the 1995 Refueling Outage; and 4) Control system for intensifier on HCV-2987, which is awaiting completion of ECN 94-280, scheduled for completion as 1995 on-line.

Currently,2 temporary modifications are over the goal of 6 months. The other 2 are exceptions to the goal as described in letter PED-STE-94-042.

At the end of February,1995, there was a total of 29 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station.19 of the 29 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 10 are removable 7

on-line. In 1995 a total of 5 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Gcrence Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 & 71 57 L_______.______._

=

5 Total Modircation Packages Open

-O-Fort cathoun Year End Goal 250 -

200 -

150-g.

k 100 -

yg.

W m

hI 1

ff; f.

~

p 8@

50 s

s kn e

'92

'93

'94 Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excludina outstand-ina modifications which are orooosed to be cancelled).

Category Reoortina Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress 1

Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0

Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 26 Construction Backlog /In Progress 30 Design Enar. Uodate Backloc/In Proaress 2

Total - 59 l

At the end of February 1995,2 additional modification requests had been issued this year and no modification requests had been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) had completed 8 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) had completed 2 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The 1995 year-end Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 50 outstanding modifications.

Data Source: Jaworski/Tumer (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsbery (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Scofield/Phelps Adverse Trend: None 58

EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout - Not in Closeout O DEN E SE 70-60-40-40-40-30-30-30-30-20-20-20-20-nr1 l-l10-10-

'0-R 10-O-

, r w.

g6 0

0 o

r 1

i i

i Dec Jan Feb Dec Jan Feb Dec Jan Feb Dec Jan Feb 0-3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months

>12 months December 1994 Overdue EARS O Closeout (SE)

O Engineering Response 80-60-or,

40-20-l

'l 0

Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 F:iority 5 Priority 6 O

Priority 1 & 2 O

Priority 3 Total Open EARS 200-150-100-

~

50-i

=

g

=

i Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 101 Overdue Responses O 70 EARS Resolved and in Closeout O 68 Overdue Closeouts O 101 EARS Requiring Response MRs m See 59.1*/ 7 40.9% "

lllllIlll 59.1 %

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineer-ing and System Engineering. The 1994 year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum of 140 outstanding EARS.

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 23 g

EARS closed during the month 28 Total EARS open as of the end of the month 171 Data Source: Skiles/Mikkelsen (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 59

=

5 in DEN - 182 E O-3 Months = 279

$7.

.3%

O in Sysi.m engineering - 101 34,3 s I

l 5.

O 3 6 Months = 115 g

O in Procurement /Constr. - 161 0.~~

O a u s. 212 Q in Closeout = 170 ECN STATUS-OVERALL BACKLOG E ECNs Backlogged O ECNs Received During the Month G ECNs Completed During the Month E O-3 Months = 89 250 R

~

9' 3

U R

200 -

g 150-

~

l 8.9%l O 3-6 Months - 38 100-d1.3%

~

g g

g 50-O >6 Months - 57 Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 (Year-to-Date monthly average d ECNs received was 39) l ECN STATUS - DEN 250-200- g g

j E O-3 Months = 27 150 -

8 s

f 26.7 %

100-R l 51.5 %

O 3-6 Months - 22 E

~

O >s Months - 52

3. a Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 ECN STATUS - SE 250 -

e B

8 s

E 0-3 Months - s5 a

a E

?--

O t s - 63 Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 20.5%

ECN STATUS - PROC /CONSTR 250 -

E R

E 88 3 0-3 Months - 170 23.5 '

57.

O M es - r g

O >s uonths-40 0

x.

Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 ECN STATUS - CLOSEOUT ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS Data Source: Skiles/Mikkelsen (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 60

_-- a

E FC Type = 189 E Priority 1 & 2 = 100 j

G SRI Type = 280 gr 8 Priority 3 & 4 - 341 55.5%F O Priority 5 & 6 = 173 5.6 O DC Type = 145 v

TOTAL OPEN ECNS BY TYPE (614 TOTAL)

TOTAL OPEN ECNs BY PRIORITY (614 TOTAL)

D DEN - Engineering Not Complete

@ System Engineering - Response, Confirmation Not Complete

@ Maintenance / Construction / Procurement-Work Not Complete E DEN - Closeout or Drafting Not Complete 199 189 187 186 189 160-g 1$2 4.8%

5 Nonty 1 or2 49 21.7Y 8-

@ Priority 3 or 4 82

'x O Priority 5 or 6 53 V

0 g

g g

g Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 Facility Change ECNs Open 250-g Priority 1 or 2 49 50-65

^ - '

4

@ Priority 3 or 4 100-79 y61.4%_/

O Priority 5 or 6 50 -

87 V

0 g

i i

Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 Substitute Replacement item ECNs Open 250-200-150-121 113 2

@ NoW 1 or 2 112 3_q g h33.8%

@ Priority 3 or 4 100-g4 i h

W M

0 30 Priority 5 or 6 9

0 g

y-7 7-7

-i Sep94 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 Document Change ECNs Open t

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN l

4 i

Data Source: Skiles/Mikkelsen (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 61

__ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _

=

@ Administrative Control Problem O Licensed Operator Error

@ Other Personnel Error Q Maintenance Problem 3-E Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem E Equipment Failures 2-1-

3 5

E 5

0 Feb94 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan95 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from February 1,1994, through January 31,1995. To be consistent with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER event date, as opposed to the LER report date.

The cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For l

detailed descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Definitions" section of this report.

There were no events in January 1995 that resulted in an LER.

Data Source: Trausch/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 62

O Totai Requaiirication Training sours O simuiator Training sours O Non-Requalification Training Hours 50-E Numberof Exam Failures l

E f

E 5

E 32

.5 30 30-4 20 -

I 37 35 14 22 f

7.

,o 10-5 yj h

3 3

3 3 3

2 0

Cycle 94-2 Cycle 94-3 Cycle 94-4 Cycle 94-5 Cycle 94-6 Cycle 94-7 Cycle 95-1

Note 1: The Simulator was out-of-service during Cycle 94-4.

Note 2: Includes 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months of General Employee Training.

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. The Simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requalification Training Hours are used for AOP/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

There was 1 simulator exam failure. The individual was removed from licensed opera-tor duties for remediation. Remediation was completed and the individual was retumed to licensed operator duties. There was no impact on shift operations.

Data Source: Gasper /Guliani (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 63 I

O SRO Exams Administered O SRO Exams Passed E RO Exams Administered O RO Exams Passed 20-15-5 l

10-7 5-l

/

j

/

l

?

7

?

3 3

?

/

t Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera-tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis-tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

There were no OPPD Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator exams adminis-tered during February 1995.

Data Source: Gasper /Guliani (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 64

O TotalOpen CARS D TotalOpen irs O Open CARS > Six Months Old S Open irs > Six Months Old 400-

[

400

- 360 300-2 2

2 2

- 320 320-

=

1

~

240-

- 240 200-

- 200 160-160 120-120 80 -

- 80

~

i 40-i 0

~

- 40 "a

-0 i

i a

i i

i a

e i

Mar 94 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 120-100-E Open Significant CARS O Open SignificantiRs 80 -

3

}

7o 73 74 75 69 GO -

40-l

~

8 7

8 8

7 6

7 7

7 6

0 Mar 95 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb95 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS This indicator shows the total number of open Corrective Action Reports (CARS), CARS

>6 months old, the total number of Open irs, irs >6 months old, the number of open significant CARS and the number of open Significant irs.

At the end of February 1995 there were 52 open CARS.15 of these CARS were greater than 6 months old. There were 7 Open Significant CARS at the end of the month.

Also, at the end of February there were 237 open irs.146 of these irs were greater than 6 months old. There were 65 Open Significant irs at the end of the month.

The 1995 monthly goal for the number of CARS greater than 6 months old is less than 30.

Data Source: Orr/Gurtis (Manager / Source) & CHAMPS Accountability: Andrews/Phelps/Patterson Adverse Trend: None I

65 L______________._____

+ EngineeringHold

--+- Planning Complete

-O-Planning Hold

--M-Ready 1050-1000-

-V--

Part Hold Total 950-900 -

850-800-750-m 700 -

$ 650-3 600 -

B 550-

< 500-300-250-200 -

I

[i7 V'

7 50-JanS4 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecB4Jan95 Feb Mar Apr95 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REFUELING OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Maintenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 16 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:

- Parts Holds (part hold removed when parts are staged and ready for use)

- Engineering Holds (Engineering hold removed when appropriate engineering paper work or support is received for the package)

- Planning Holds (Planning hold removed when planning is completed to the point when package is ready or other support is necessary to continue the planning process)

- Planning Complete (status given when only items keeping the job from being ready to work are parts or engineering support)

- Ready (status when all planning, supporting documentation, and parts are ready to go)

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 66

1995 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS

-- - Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval Projected / Actual Schedule for PRC Approval Final Design Package issued (17 FD DCP issued prior to 1/3/95) l Total Modification Packages (19)

W 20-l l

l l

_j jy{ A l

l l

l

!E 2N 15-

=

U 5h w

E<

T> 0 10-5E g&

o-zj E

s-E O

i i

i 1/6/95 2/3/95 3/3/95 3/31/95 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 OUTAGE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 19 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of 4 emergent modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 16 Refueling Outage. These 4 modifications are not part of the perfor-mance indicator to have outage modifications approved 6 months prior to the outage.

The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established 1/13/95) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report provided by the Design Engineering group.

February 1995 Modifications Added = 4 Deleted = 0 The 4 modifications added in February have been PRC approved and are not included in this performance indicator.

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages identified prior to 1/13/95 and PRC approved by March 9,1995.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronne (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Skiles Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 67

1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATIONS

- - Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval Projected / Actual Schedule for PRC Approval Final Design Package issued (6 FD DCPs issued prior to 1/3/95) g Total Modification Packages (15) (1 is Close Out Only)

E*

=e

.E o 15-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

3

...... 7.......

aw

.@ E 10-

/

-e

<a o

o

$' a.E 5-

@a Eg zR$0 iiiiiii iiii.

iiiiiiiii iiii iisiiiiiiiii E

E E

e e

q m

n m

m n

o 8

E E

5 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 OUTAGE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 14 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for on-line installation during 1995. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established 1/13/

95) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report produced by the Design Engineering Nuclear group.

February 1995 Modifications Added = 0 Deleted = 0 The goal for this indicator was to have all modification packages identified prior to 1/13/95 and PRC approved by September 28,1995.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronne (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Skiles Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 68 l

ACTION PLANS l

69 I

___________________________________J

i ACTION PLANS l

This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing Increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months.

In accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-0P-37 the following performance indicators would require action plans based on three (3) consecutive months of performance cited as "Needing Increased Management Attention"-

Fuel Reliability

Thermal Performance The Plant Manager and Station Engineering Manager have reviewed the daily and ongoing actions being taken to return these performance indicators to meeting the goals. This review indicates appropriate action is being taken and no explicit action plan is required.

The action plan for Fuel Reliability Indicator (page 14) follows:

1) Fission product activity data from January full power operation showed a Xenon-133 activity increase but no iodine spiking. The Westinghouse and ABB/CE technical experts on fuel reliability have concluded that there is potential for one or two defective fuel rod (s) in the Cycle 15 core.

This prediction is based on a change in the Xe-133 to I-131 radio. This prediction has been supported by results from the CHIRON and CADE fuel reliability codes which also indicate one or two fuel pins to be failed.

2) The Cesium isotopes will be evaluated during the end of cycle shutdown in an attempt to calculate the burnup of the leaking assembly.

A request for quotation has been issued to provide failed fuel inspection services should they be required to identify the leaking fuel assembly.

70 l

=

ACTION PLANS (continued)

The action plan for Thermal Performance (page 32) follows:

l Thermal performance will improve as a result of the following actions:

1) FW Flow Nozzle Foulina Study Initial results from this study have confirmed losses in plant electrical output are occurring due to conservatively over calculating l

Reactor thermal power based on a secondary side heat balance.

Nozzle fouling occurs after prolonged operation at steady power. Applying the results of this study (a final report will be presented following the current outage) will take place over the next year to improve plant output and heat rate.

2) ETA Addition The investigation of the effects of adding ETA (ethanolamine) to secondary chemistry continues.

Initial results dealing with ETA l

effects on FW Flow Nozzle deposits will be presented with the final l

report for the fouling study.

ETA testing should be completed j

following the outage after inspection of secondary systems and l

equipment.

3) Outaae Maintenance Activities Condenser cleaning and backwash valve repairs will be performed during the current outage.

4) Imoroved Secondary System Monitorina Electronic storage of ERF log data (hourly as well as daily plant data can now be reviewed) and additional pages incorporated into the logs in November of 1994 have increased the number of data points used for performance monitoring from 85 to 184 and the amount of plant data reviewed by a factor of fifty overall.

The additional data points (condensate temperatures, extraction pressures, heater drain temperatures turbine vibration, seal temperatures, etc.) will aid in the detection of equipment problems and improve plant performance as well as reliability.

71

ACTION PLANS (continued)

5) Imoroved Calculation Methods Changes by INPO in the methodology for calculating thermal performance will be incorporated into the Performance Indicator.

Averaging of once a week values for the monthly indicator was started in January 1995.

- Use of the "best achievable heat rate" instead of " design heat rate" for calculating the indicator will begin upon completion of a review of past operating data.

r r

P 72

)

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXIUARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS PERFORMANCE 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-AREA able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the The personnel contamination events in the clean con-auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period di-trolled area. This indicator tracks personnel perfor-vided by the critical hours for the reporting period multi-mance for SEP #15 & 54.

plied by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE includes the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and Collective radiation exposure is the total external whole-areas of the C/RP building, that is contaminated based body dose received by all on-site personnel (including on the total square footage. This indicator tracks perfor-contractors and visitors) during a time period, as mea-mance for SEP # 54.

sured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Col-lective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-DAILY THERMAL OLHPUT rem. This indicator tracks radiological work performance This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as for SEP #54.

measured from computer point XC105 (in thermal mega-watts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) portion of the 1495 MW FCS daily goal for the reporting

SUMMARY

month are also shown.

The number of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Staton with signifcantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) fail-DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS) l ure rates than the rest of the industry for an eighteen This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for month time period. Failures are reported as component each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start (i.e. pumps, motors, valves, etc.) and application (i.e.

demands and the last 25 load-run demands.

l charging pumps, main steam stop valves, control ele-ment drive motors, etc.) categories.

DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Failure Cause Categories are:

(LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

Wear Out/ Aging - a failure thought to be the conse-This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for quence of expected wear or aging.

all utility personnel permanently assigned to the rtation, Manuf acturing Defed - a f ailure attributable to inad-involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours equate assembly or initial quality of the responsible com-worked (100 man-years). This does not include contrac-

}

ponent or system.

tor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel perfor-I Engineering / Design - a f ailure attributable to the inad-mance for SEP #25,26 & 27.

equate design of the responsible component or system.

Other Devices - a f ailure attributable to a failure or DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL) l misoperation of another component or system, including The Document Review Indicator shows the number of associated devices.

documents reviewed, the number of documents sched-Maintenance / Testing - a failure that is a result of im-uled for review, and the number of document reviews proper maintenance or testing, lack of maintenance, or that are overdue for the reporting month. A document personnel errors that occur during maintenance or test-review is considered overdue if the review is not com-ing activities performed on the responsible component or plete within 6 months of the assigned due date. This system, including failure to follow procedures.

indicator tracks performance for SEP #46.

Errors - failures attributable to incorrect procedures that were followed as written, improper installation of equip-EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM ment, and personnel errors (including iallure to follow PERFORMANCE procedures properly). Also included in this category are The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-failures for which the cause is unknown or cannot be as-able and the estimated unavailable hours for the emer-signed to any of the preceding categories.

gency AC power system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours in the reporting period multiplied CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR by the number of trains in the emergency AC power sys-The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economi-

tem, caloperation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilowatt hour on a 12 month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1993 budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

73 l

l

=

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABIL-EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY ITY This indicator measures the total unreliability of emer-This indicator shows the number of failures that were gency diesel generators. In general, unreliability is the reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency die-ratio of unsuccessf ul operations (starts or load-runs) to set generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also the number of va!id demands. Total unreliability is a shown are trigger values which correlate to a high level combination of start unreliability and load-run of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have ob-unreliability.

tained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the demand failures are less than the trigger values.

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR)

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent BREAKDOWN start demands, including all start only demands and all This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of start demands that are tollowed by load-run demands, the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design En-whether by automatic or manual initiation. A start-only gineering Nuclear and System Engineering. This indica-demand is a demand in which the emergency generator tor tracks performance for SEP #62.

is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator.

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure within the emer-ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS gency generator system that prevents the generator from The number of ECNs that were opened. ECNs that were achieving specified frequency and voltage is classified as completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion a valid start failure. This includes any condition identified by DEN for the reporting month. This indicator tracks in the course of maintenance inspections (with the emer-performance for SEP #62.

gency generator in standby mode) that definitely would have resulted in a start failure if a demand had occurred.

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run This indicator breaks down the number of Engineering demand to be counted the load-run attempt must meet Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design one or more of the following critoria:

Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real au-Maintenance. The graohs provide data on ECN Facility tomatic or manualinitiation.

Changes open, ECN Substitute Replacement Parts B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration open, and ECN Document Changes open. This indicator as stated in each test's specifications.

tracks performance for SEP $62.

C) Other special tests in which the emergency generator is expected to be operated for at least one hour while EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITI-loaded with at least 50% of its design load.

CAL HOURS

4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A load-run failure Equipment forced outages per 1000 critical hours is the should be counted for any reason in which the emer-inverse of the mean time between forced outages gency generator does not pick up load and run as pre-caused by equipment failures. The mean time is equal dicted. Failures are counted during any valid load-run to the number of hours the reactor is critical in a period demands.

(1,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ) divided by the number of forced outages

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful attempts to start or load-run caused by equipment failures in that period.

should not be counted as valid demands or failures when they can be attributed to any of the following:

EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR A) Spurious trips that would be bypassed in the event of This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available an emergency.

generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required during a percentage. Available generation is the energy that an emergency.

can be produced if the unit is operated at the maximum C)Intentionaltermination of a test because of abnormal power level permitted by equipment and regulatory limi-conditions that would not have resulted in major diesel tations. Maximum generation is the energy that can be generator damage or repair.

produced by a unit in a given period if operated continu-D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would have not ously at maximum capacity, prevented the emergency generator from being restarted and brought to load within a few minutes.

FORCED OUTAGE RATE E) A f ailure to start because a portion of the starting sys-This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that tem was disabled for test purpose, if followed by a suc-the unit was unavailable due to forced events compared cessful start with the starting system in its normal align-to the time planned for electrical generation. Forced m ent.

events are failures or other unplanned condrtions that Each emergency generator failure that results in the gen-require removing the unit from service before the end of orator being declared inoperable should be counted as the next weekend. Forced events include start-up fail-one demand and one failure. Exploratory tests during ures and events initiated while the unit is in reserve shut corrective maintenance and the successf ul test that fol.

down (i.e., the unit is available but not in service),

lows repair to verify operability should not be counted as demands or f ailures when the EDG has not been de clared operable again.

74 I

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS l

FUEL REUABlWTY MDICATOR UCENSE CAND!DATE EXAMS This indicssor is dehned as the steady-state primary cool. This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quiz-l ant I-131 activity, correded for the tramp uranium contri.

zes and exams that are administered and passed each l

bution and normalized to a common purification rate.

month. This indicator tracks training performanoe for i

Tramp uraaium is fuel which has been deporited on re-

,SEP #68.

amor core intemals from previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manu-UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAIN-i facturing process. Steady state is defined as continuous NG operation for at least three days at a power level that The total number of hours of training given to each crew does not vary more than + or - 5%. Plants should collect dunng each cycle. Also provided are the simulator train-

}

data for this indicator at a power love; above 85%, when ing hours (which are a subset of the total training hours),

possible. Plants that did not operate at steady-state the number of non-requalification training hours and the l

power above 85% should colled data for this indicator at number of exam failures. This indicator tracks training I

ihe highest steady-state power level attained during the Performance for SEP #68.

month.

The density correction fador is the ratio of the specific UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE l

volume of molant at the RCS operating temperature BREAKDOWN i

(540 degrees F., Vf = 0.02146) divided by the specific This indicator shows the number and root cause code for volume of coolant at normalletdown temperature (120 Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as degrees F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat ex.

follows:

j changer, VI - 0.016204), which results in a density mr.

1) Administrative Control Problem Management and rection factor for FCS equal to 1.32.

supervisory deficiencies that affect piant programs or activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of ad-GROSS HEAT RATE equate management or supervisory control, inwrrect Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal procedures, etc.)

energy in British Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the

2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures i

reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by errors of omissionAcommission by licensed reactor opera-

[

the generator 'n kilowatt-hours (KWH).

tors during plant artivities.

3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission /commis-i HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED sion committed by non-licensed personnel involved in The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated haz.

plant activities.

ardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other

4) Maintenance Problem - The intent of this cause hazardous waste produced by FCS each month, code is to capture the full range of problems which can be attributed in any way to programmatic deficiencies in i

y.

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM the maintenance functional organization. Activities in-l SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE cluded in this category are maintenance, testirg, surveil-The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail.

lance, calibration and radiation protection.

able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the

5) Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem i

high pressure sa'ety injection system for the reporting

- This cause code covers a full range of programmatic period divided by the critical hours for the reporting pe.

deficiencies in the areas of design, construction, installa-riod multiplied by the number of trains in the high pres.

tion, and fabrication (i.e., loss of control power due to sure safety injection system.

underrated fuse, equipment not quali?od for the environ-ment, etc.).

i MDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE INPO

6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-Parts or Envi-l This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per ronmental-Related Failures) - This mde is used for spuri-200,000 man-hours worked for all utility personnel per.

ous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to rnanently assigned to the station that result in any of the meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high i

following: 1) one or me,re days of restricted work (ex.

winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time i

ciuding the day of the accident); 2) one or more days.

failures. Electric ec;nponents included in this category away from work (excluding the day of the accident); and are circuit cards, rectifiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors,

3) fatalities. Contractor personnel are not included for diodes, resistors, etc.

this indicator.

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE NCIDENTS (SECURITY)

IN-LME CHEhESTRY NSTRUMENTS OUT OF SER.

The total number of security incidents for the reporting VICE month depided in two graphs. This indicator trads so-Total number of in-line chemistry instruments that are curity performance for SEP #58.

j out-of-service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

MAINTENANCE OVERTIRE I

The % of overtime hours compared to normal hours for maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as contract personnel.

75

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFI-This indicator shows the backlog of non outage Mainte-C8ENCIES nance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as reporting month. Maintenance classifications are de-any component which is operated or controlled from the fined as:

Control Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabilities from the Control Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or com-Room, provides automatic actions from or to the Control ponents that have failed or are malfunctioning and are Room, or provides a passive function for the Control 1

not performing their intended function.

Room and has been identified as deficient, i.e., does not perform under all conditions as designed. This definition Preventive - Actions taken to maintain a piece of equip-also applies to the Ahemate Shutdown Panels Al-170, l

ment within design operating cond?. ions, prevent equip-Al-185, and Al-212.

ment failure, and extend its life and are performed prior A plant component which is deficient or inoperable is to equipment failure.

considered an " Operator Work Around (OWA) ltem" if some other action is required by an operator to compen-Non-Corrective / Plant improvements - Maintenance ac-sate for the condition of the component. Some examples tivities performed to implement station improvements or of OWAs are: 1) The control room level indicator does to repair non-plant equipment.

not work but a local sightglass can be read by an Opera-l tor out in the plant; 2) A deficient pump cannot be re-l Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as:

paired because replacement parts require a long lead time for purchase / delivery, thus requiring the redundant Emergency - Conditions which significantly degrade sta-pump to be operated continuously; 3) Special actions tion safety or availability.

are required by an Operator because of equipment de-sign problems. These actions may be described in Op-Immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which signifi-erations Memorandums, Operator Notes, or may require cantly degrade station reliability. Polantial for unit shut-changes to Operating Procedures. 4) Deficient plant down or power reduction.

equipment that is required to be used during Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating Proce-Operations Concern - Equipment deficiencies which dures. 5) System indication that provides enticalinfor-hinder station operation.

mation during normal or abnormal operations.

Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on essential NUMBER OF hESSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RE-station systems and equipment.

SULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Non-Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on non-Licensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting essential station systems and equipment.

month. This indicator tracks missed STs for SEP #60 &

61.

Plant improvement - Non corrective maintenance and plant improvements.

OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS & INCIDENT REPORTS This indicator tracks maintenance performance for SEP This indicator displays the total number of open Correc-

36.

tive Action Reports (CARS), the number of CARS that are older than six months and the number of open significant MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE CARS. Also displayed are the number of open incident The total maximum amount of radiation received by an Reports (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six individual person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, months old and the number of open significant irs.

and annual basis.

OUTSTANDING MODIFICA110NS MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REFUELING The number of Modification Requests (MRs) in any state OUTAGE) between the issuance of a Modification Number and the The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have completion of the drawing update.

been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 15 Refueling

1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress. This number rep-Outage and the number that are ready to work (parts resents modification requests that have not been plant staged, planning complete, and all other paperwork approved during the reporting month.

ready for field use). Also included is the number of

2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category MWOs that have engineering holds (ECNs, procedures includes:

and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts hold, A.) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed.

(parts staged, not yet inspected. parts not yet arrived)

B.) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear and planning hold (job scope not yet completed). Main.

Projects Review Committee (NPRC).

tenance Work Requests (MWRs) are also shown that C.) Modifcation Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear have been identified for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage Projects Committee (NPC) and have not yet been converted to MWOs.

These Modification Requests may be reviewed several times before they are approved for accomplishment or 76

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS l

l cancelled. Some o' these Modification Requests are For purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel I

retumed to Engineering for more information, some ap-Error" LER is defined as follows: An event for which the proved for evaluation, some approved for study, and root cause is inappropriate action on the part of one or some approved for planning. Once planning is com-more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a de-pleted and the scope of the work is clearly defined, these partment or a general group). Also, the inappropriate Modification Requests may be approved for accomplish-action must have occurred within approximately two ment with a year assigned for construction or they may years of the

Event Date* specified in the LER.

l be cancelled. All of these different phases require re-Additionally, each event classified as a

Personnel Error

I view.

should also be classified as " Preventable.* This indicator

3) Design Engineering Backlog /in Progress. Nuclear trends personnel performance for SEP ltem #15.

Planning has assigned a year in which construction will be completed and design work may be in progress.

PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY % OF NOURS OUT l

4) Construction Backlog /In Progress. The Construction OF LMT Package has been issued or construction has begun but The % of hours out of limit are for six primary chemistry l

the modification has not been accepted by the System parameters divided by the total number of hours possible Acceptance Committee (SAC).

for the month. The key parameters used are: Lithium,

5) Design Engineering Update Backlog /in Progress. PED Chloride, Hydrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride and has received the Modification Completion Report but the Suspended Solids. EPRIlimits are used.

6

(

drawings have not been updated.

The above mentioned outstanding modifications do not PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLlANCE INCIDENTS include modificativns which are proposed for cancella-(MAINTENANCE) tion.

The number of identified incidents concerning mainte-nance procedural problems, the number of closed irs OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) related to the use of procedures (includes the number of This indicator shows the status of the projects which are closed irs caused by procedural noncompliance), and in the scope of the Refueling Outage.

the number of closed procedural noncompliance irs.

This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER

15,41 & 44.

MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK The percentage of total MWOs completed per month PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 OUTAGE MODIFICATION identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 15 MODIFICA-maintenanc craft. Rework is: Any additional work re-TlONS) quired to correct deficiencies discovered during a failed This indicator shows the status of modifications ap-3 Post Maintenance Test to ensure the component / system proved for completion during the Refueling Outage, passes subsequent Post Maintenance Tests.

PROGRESS OF 1994 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLAN-PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTE-NING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 14 MODIFICATIONS) l NANCE ACTIVI11ES This indicator shows the status of modifications ap-l The % of the number of completed maintenance activi-proved for completion during 1994.

ties as compared to the number of scheduled mainte-nance activities each month. This % is shown for all RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM maintenance crafts. Also shown are the number of The number of identified poor radiological work practices emergent MWOs. Maintenance activities include MWRs, (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, and other miscella-radiological work performance for SEP #52.

i neous activities. This indicator tracks Maintenance per-I formance for SEP #33.

RATIO OF PREVENT 1VE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE &

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveil-This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of lance testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of LER event classification, a preventable LER is defined non outage corrective maintenance and preventive main-as: An event for which the root cause is personnel error tenance completed over the reporting period. The ratio, (i.e., inappropriate action by one or more individuals),

expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man-inadequate administrative controls, a design /construc-hours. Also displayed are the % of preventive mainte-tion / installation /f abncation problem (involving work com-nance items in the month that were not comp!sted or ad-pleted by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a main-ministratively closed by the scheduled date plus a grace tenance problem (attributed to inadequate or improper period equal to 25 % of the scheduled interval. This indi-upkeep / repair of plant equipment). Also, the cause of cator tracks preventive maintenance activities for SEP l

the event must have occurred within approximateY two

41.

l years of the

Event Date* specified in the LER (e.g., an event for which the cause is attributed to a problem with the onginal design of the plant would not be considered preventable).

77

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FRE.

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OUENCY RATE Significant events are those events identified by NRC The number of injuries requiring more than normal first staff through detaued screening and evaluation of operat-aid per 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator ing experience. The screening process includes the trends personnel performance for SEP #15,25 & 26.

daily review and discussion of all reported operating re-actor events, as well as other operational data such as REPEAT FAILURES special tests or construction activities. An event identi-The number of Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System fied from the s;:reening process as a significant event (NPRDS) components with more than 1 failure and the candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actua!

number of NPRDS components with more than 2 failures or potential threat to the health and safety of the public for the eighteen month CFAR period, was involved. Specific examples of the type of criteria are summarized as follows: 1) Degradation of important SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES safety equpment; 2) Unexpected plant responce to a Safety system failures are any events or conditions that transient; 3) Degradation of fuelintegrity, primary mol-could prevent the fulfillment of the safety functions of ant pressure boundary, important associated features; structures or systems, if a system consists of multiple

4) Scram with complication: 5) Unplanned release of redundant subsystems or trains, failure of all trains con-radioactivity; 6) Operation outside the limits of the Tech-stitutes a safety system failure. Failure of one of two or nical Specifications; 7) Other.

i more trains is not counted as a safety system failure.

INPO significant events reported in this indicator are The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting SERs (Significant Event Reports) which inform utilities of requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The significant events and lessons teamed identified through following is a list of the major safety systems, sub-the SEE-IN screening process.

systems, and componet ts monitored for this indicator:

Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, Auxiliary (and SPARE PARTSINVENTORY VALUE Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Con-The dollar value of the spare parts inventory value for trol. Componant Cooling Water System, Containment FCS during the reporting period.

and Containment isolation, Containment Coolant Sys-tems, Control Room Emergency Ventilation System, STAFFING LEVEL Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety The actual staffing level and the authorized staffing level Features instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air for the Nuclear Operations Division, the Production Engi-Systems, Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire neering Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This i

Detection or Suppression Systems, Isolaton Condenser, indicator tracks performan for SEP #24.

Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC STATION NET GENERATION Power w/ Distribution, Radiaton Monitoring instrumenta-The net generation (sum) produced by the FCS during tion, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation the reporting month.

Cooling System, Reactor Trip System and Instrumenta-tion, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS Residual Heat Removal Systems, Safety Valves, Spent The number of temporary mechanical and electrical con-Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid Control System and Ulti-figurations to the plant's systems.

mate Heat Sink.

1) Temporary configuratons are defined as electrical jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or me-SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE chanical blocks which are installed in the plant operating INDEX systems and are not shown on the latest revision of the The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculation P&lD, schematic, mnnection, wiring, or flow diagrams.

based on the mncentration of key impurities in the sec-

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveil-ondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the lance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Pro-most likely cause of deterioration of the steam genera-cedures, Special Procedures, or Operating Procedures lors. Criteria for calculating the cpl are: 1) The plant is are ret considered at temporary modifications unless the at greater than 30 percent power; and 2) The power is jumper or block remains in place after the test or proce-changing less than 5% per day. The CPIis calculated dure is complete. Jumpers and b'ocks installed in test or using the following equation: CPI - (sodium /D.90) +

lab instruments are not considered as temporary modifi-(Chloride /1.70) + (Sulfate /1.90) + (Iron /4.40) + (Copper /

cations.

0.30)/5. Where: Sodium, sulf ate and chloride are the

3) Scaffolding is not considered a temporry modifica-monthly average blowdown concentrations in ppb, iron ton. Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for and copper are monthly time weighted average which MRs have been submitted wit be considered as feedwater concentratons in ppb. The denominator for temporary modifications until final n> solution of the MR each of the 5 f adors is the INPO median value. If the and the jumper or block is removed or is permanently monthly average for a specife parameter is less than the recorded on the drawings. This intacator tracks tempo-INPO median value, th a median value is used in the cal-tary modifications for SEP #62 & 71.

culaton.

78

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS t

THERMAL PERFORMANCE UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUADONS -(INPO i

The ratio of the design gross heat rate (mrrected) to the DEFINIDON) adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percent-This indicator is defined as the sum of the following safety

[

age.

system actuations:

1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling UNIT CAPABlWTY FACTOR System (ECCS) actuations that result from reaching an The ratio of the available energy generation over a given ECCS actuation setpoint or from a spurious / inadvertent time period to the reference energy generation (the on-ECCS signal.

ergy that could be produced if the unit were operated

2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power system l

continuously at full power under reference ambient con-actuations that result from a loss of power to a safeguards ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per-bus. An unplanned safety system actuation occurs when centage.

an actuation setpoint ior a safety system is reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR only), and major equipment in the system is actuated.

The not electrical energy generated (MWH) divided by Unplanned rneans that the system actuation was not part the product of maximum dependable capacity (not MWe) of a planned test or evolution. The ECCS actuations to be times the gross hours in the reporting period expressed counted are actuations of the high pressure injection sys-as a percent. Net electrical energy generated is the tem, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injec-gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output tion tanks.

terminals of the turbine generator minus the normal sta-tion service loads during the gross hours of the reporting UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUADONS(NRC period, expressed in megawatt hours.

DEFINITION)

The number of safety system actuations which include UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER (gnk) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS Pressure Safety injection System, the Safety injection This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned au-Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC tomatic scrams (reactor protection system logic actua-classification of safety system actuations includes actua-tions) that occur per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of critical operation-tions when major equipment is operated and when the The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying logic systems for the above safety systems are chal-the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams lenged.

in a specific time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dividing that number by the total number of hours critical in the VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECDON HOURS same time period. The indicator is further defined as This indicator is defined as the number of violations tited follows:

in NRC inspection reports for FCS per 1,000 NRC inspec-

1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an antici-tion hours. The violations are reported in the year that the pated part of a planned test.

inspection was actually performed and not based on when

2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor the inspection report is received. The hours reported for by a rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control each inspection report are used as the inspecton hours.

rods, liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by ac-tuation of the reactor protection system. The scram si - VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE 9

nal may have resultsd from exceeding a setpoint or may WASTE have been spurious.

This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level solid

3) Automatic means that the initial signal that caused radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This indica-l actuation of the reactor protection system logic was pro-tot also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste vided from one of the sensors monitoring plant param-which is in temporary storage,the amount of radioactive eters and conditions, rather than the manual scram oil that has been shipped off-site for processing, and the i

switches or, in manual turbine trip switches (or push-but-volume of solid dry radioactive waste which has been tons) provided in the main control room.

shipped off-site for processing. Low-level solid radioactive

4) Critical means that during the steady-state cond: tion of waste consists of dry active waste, sludges, resins, and I

the reactor prior to the scram, the effective multiplcation evaporator bottoms generated as a result of nuclear power I

factor (k,) was essentially equal to one.

plant operation and maintenance. Dry radioactive waste i

includes con!aminated rags, cleaning materials, dispos-t UNPLANNED CAPABluTY LOSS FACTOR able protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given material to be disposed of at a low-level radioactive waste period of time, to the reference energy generation (the disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms.

i energy that could be produced if the unit were operated Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is not spent continuously at full power under reference ambient con-fuel or a by-product of spent fuel processing. This indica-ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per-tor tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54.

centage.

I l

79

.x.

w a,n,

.--.w.--

a a.

s.-.u--

a.u

,x

,..a n.+.,

p 4

J

)

I i

j

'.I

- l I

6 t

+

?

t i

I h

I 4

4

- i a

i t

t 9

i

?

t

+

t

?

D t

\\

i 4

t P

3

[

B D

t I

h I

I r

n I

s d

I i

l I

I

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance indicators index is to list perfor-mance indcators related to SEP ltems with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 EaQR Increase HPES and IR Accountability Through Use of Performance Indcators Procedural Nonoompliance incidents (Maintenance)........................................................... 49 Clean Controlled Area Contaminatens 21.000 Deintegrations/ Minute Per Probe Area........... 5 Recordable injuryMliness Cases Frequency Rate....................................

.................4 i

Preventable / Personnel Error LERs...

............................................................................ 6 SEP Reference Number 24 Complete Staff Studies

[

Statfing t.evel

........................42 SEP Reference Number 25 Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented Dsabling injury / illness Frequency Rate............................................................................ 3 j

Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate............................................................. 4 SEP Reference Number 26 Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements

[

Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate...............................

...............3 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate.......

............4 SEP Reference Number 27 Implement Supervisory Enforcement of industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / illness Frequency Rate................................................................. 3 i

Recordable injury / illness Cases Frequency Rate............................................................... 4 f

SEP Reference Number 31 Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 16 Refueling Outage)......................

............................66 Overall Proiect Status (Cycle 16 Refueling Outage)..........................

.................67 Progress of Cycle 16 Outage Modification Planning.................................................. 68 SEP Reference Number 33 Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts)............................................................

.............. 5 0 SEP Reference Number 36 i

t Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog Maintenance Workload Ba& logs (Corrective Non-Outage)............................................ 45 SEP Reference Number 41 Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue............. 46 Procedural Noncompliance incidents................................................................. 49 I

l l

80

i I

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX (continued) l SEP Reference Number 44 Eagt Compliance WRh and Use of Procedures Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance)............................................

. 49 r

i SEP Reference Number 46 Design a Procedures Control and Admmistrative Program j

Docu ment R e view................................................................................................. 55 SEP Reference Number 52 Establish Supervisory Accourtabilty for Workers Radiological Practices Radiologeal Work Practices Program.................................................................. 54 SEP Reference Number 54 Complete implementation of Radological Enhancement Program Collective Radiation Exposure..........................

....... 16 i

Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste.........................

.................................37 Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations 21,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area....................... 5 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area............................................................. 53 SEP Reference Number 58 Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security).

..........................................................56 SEP Reference Number 60 Irmrove Controls Over Surveillance Test Program t

Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports........................ 20 SEP Reference Number 81 Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports...

........... 20 SEP Referencr. Number 62 Establish Interim System Engineers Ter@orary Modifications.....................................................................................57 i

Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown.......................

.. 59 Engineering Change Notice Status.....................................................

...................60 Engineering Change Notices Open..........................................

....................61 l

SEP Reference Number 88 Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and Establish Means to Monitor Operator Training Licensed Operator Requalification Training....................................................... 63 License Candidate Exams..............

.......................64

?

SEP Reference Number 71

[

improve Controls over Temporary Modifcations l

Temporary Modifications -

......... 57 1

l I

5 h

l i

81 t

l 1

REPORT DISTTilBUTION UST R.L Andrews W. C. Jones K. L Belek J. D. Keppler B. H. Biome D. D. Kloock C. E. Boughter L T. Kusek C. J. Brunnert M. P. Lazar M. W. Butt B. R. Livingston G. R. Cavanaugh D. L Lovett J. W. Chase J. H. MacKinnon A. G. Christensen J. W. Marcil N. L. Marfice O. J. Clayton R. P. Clemens R. D. Martin R. G. Conner T. J. Mcivor J. L Connolley K. G. Melstad G. M. Cook K. A. Miller S. R. Crites P. A. Mruz D. W. Dale Nuclear Ucensing D. C. Dietz

& Industry Affairs M. L Ellis J. T. O'Connor H. J. Faulhaber W. W. Orr M. T. Frans T. L Patterson D. P. Galle R. T. Pearce S. K. Gambhir R. L Phelps J. K. Gasper W.J.Ponec W. G. Gates C. R. Rice S. W. Gebers A. W. Richard L. V. Goldberg D. G. Ried D. J. Golden G. K. Samide D. C. Gorence M. J. Sandhoetrar R. H. Guy F. C. Scofield A. L Hale H. J. Sefick K. R. Henry J. W. Shannon J. B. Herman C. F. Simmons T. L Herman E.L.Skaggs K. C. Holthaus J. L. Skiles L. P. Hopkins F. K. Smith C. K. Huang R. L. Sorenson T. W. Jamieson K. E. Steele R. L. Jaworski M. A.Tesar R. A.Johansen J. J. Tesarek J. W. Johnson J. W. Tills R. Jones D. R. Trausch J. M. Waszak G. R. Williams S. J. Wilfrett 82

FORT CALHOUN STATION OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES

)

Event Date Range Production (MWH)

Cumulative (MWH)

}

Cycle 1 09/26/73 -02/01/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 l

1st Refueling 02/01/75 05,119/75 Cycle 2 05/09/75 -10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01/76 -12/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 9/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 3rd Refueling 09/30/77-12/09/77 l

Cycle 4 12/09/77-10/14/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 4th Refueling 10/14/78-12/24/78 Cycle 5 12/24/78 - 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling 01/18/80- 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 6th Refueling 09/18/81 -12/21/81 l

Cycle 7 12/21/81 - 12/06/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 l

7th Refueling 12/06/82 - 04/07/83 i

Cycle 8 04/07/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 8th Refueling 03/03/84- 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 f

9th Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 l

t Cycle 10 01/16/06 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 I

10th Refueling 03/07/87- 06/08/87 l

l Cycle 11 06/08/87- 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 11th Refueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 Cycle 12 01/31/89 - 02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 12th Refueling 02/17/90 - 05/29/90 Cycle 13 05/29/90- 02/01/92 5,451,069 51,040,528 13th Refueling 02/01/92- 05/03/92 i

Cycle 14 05/03/92 -09/25/93 4,981,485 56,022,013 14th Refueling 09/25/93-11/26/93 Cycle 15 11/26/93 - 02/20/95 5,043,886 61,065,899 i

15th Refueling 02/20/95- 04/10/95 (Planned Dates) 1 FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" i

First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (180,000 KWH)

September 26,1973 i

Achieved Full Power (100%)

May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 days)

June 8,1987-Sept.17,?988 Highest Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH)

October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH)(Cycle 13)

May 29,1990-Feb.1,1992 i

i

_.

ML20081J138

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search